Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Kocolicious:
Originally posted by Romulus
quote:
You base this all on the Germans? Perhaps you should role back a little further in the history book:

About 2,000 years ago, the Roman Empire ruled [Israel], and in suppressing several Jewish rebellions, the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple in the city of Jerusalem, killed large numbers of Jews, and forced many others to leave their homeland in an exodus called "The Diaspora." Some Jews remained in the area, but large numbers of Jews did not return until the 19th and 20th Century, especially after World War Two and the Holocaust.


fro So......the Palestinians HAVE to pay for what the ROMANS did 2,000 years ago? So...the Palestinians have to uproot their entire culture based on something that happened to the Jews 2,000 years ago? What kind of SENSE does that make? Okay. Then tell Italy to give the Jews some LAND....why is Palestine obligated to do so? They have been there for HOW LONG? If that's the case then the United States should give the Amerindians BACK AMERICA!! Look what the hell the Europeans did to them. They made large amount of them moved from Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia...which states are far more LARGER than what land the Jews had. Are they gonna do that? Hell to the Nawl! And let's not talk about what the Europeans did to Amerindians in South America. So for me....it's TOTALLY unreasonable for the Jews to think that Palestine belongs to them after 2000 focking years. How arrogantRoll Eyes fro


It's beyond arrogant and downright stupid when the 'Jews' that think this aren't even the progeny of the people who actually inhabited the area 2,000 years ago... but the Palestinians ARE... They just happen to be the Semetic folk who converted to Islam at a later date... sck

It is also not logical/ethical to set up an EXCLUSIVE religious state, because the area has never been EXCLUSIVELY inhabitted by one religion.
quote:
going all the way back to the beginning

...Is this far back enough?
1891
The first large scale immigration of jewish settlers, due to persecution in russia and romania.

Note: arab palestinians had nothing to do with that.

Some 25,000 jews in palestine, during 1891.

According to a "spiritual zionist", a russian jewish leader name ashner ginzberg a.k.a. ahad ha'am visited palestine. Buggin' by the behavior of his fellow jews, ha'am writes," They treat the arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them with out cause and even boast of these deeds and nobody among us oppose this despicable and dangerous inclination. He goes on to write, "It was evident...the arabs would stand up against us".

This dude was quite the prophet, no?

quote:
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict stems from competing Jewish and Arab national aspirations for the region.


What "aspirations", for the jews? Did those aspirations come before or after the writing on the wall said they betta' roll out of germany or its azz out. European jews, particularly in germany, wasn't even trying to 'see' israel. They had it going on germany (and other spots in europe).

"Nobody can rob us of our German fatherland", stated with dignity by the Organization of Jewish War Veterans". That is until adulf rolled up on'em. Yet even still, israel wasn't high on their wish list. They were considering places like angola, cuba, guiana, dominican republic, uganda, and kenya to say the least.

quote:
conflicting promises by the British in the forms of the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence and the Balfour Declaration
There was no conflict they were both getting played by the brits.

The balfour thing promised nothing. It was a political document; a public relations gesture. For instance, it spoke to a jewish home, not a jewish state. Jewish autonomy/rule was not mentioned. It was ambiguous on purpose, for parliament was not interested in making a commitment to the jews. Which, if I recall, lead to putting operation Aliyah Beth in effect.

Hussein-mcmahan. Another sham. The [raw] deal was that the arabs help the brits fight against the turks for their independence. However the palestinians were still in palestine and had nothing to do with the european jews catching hell.

quote:
Zionism, the Jewish national movement, was established as a political movement in 1897,


Speaking of zionism, zionist leader, herzl, it could be said that he really didn't give a whut about the his fellow jews. A "a self-hating jew" some have called him. "I took a look at the Paris Jews and saw a family in likeness in their faces; bold, misshapen noses. Furtive and cunning eyes", stated as a correspondent in france. Observing the discrimination of the jews, he says, "The anti-semites are within their rights".

Regarding the jewish persecution in russia, it didn't seem to matter to herzl, for he met with v.k. plehve, the russian minister for the pogrom, because he considered him to a "sensible anti-semite". Plehve responsible for doin' off jews in russia and herzl calls him sensible?

Palestinians, again, had nothing to do with this.

NOTE: There was a plan to set up a 2-nation state, between the world wars, but the zionist botched that idea because they wanted unrestricted immigration, and the arabs wasn't having that.

This enough history for you sulumor?
Sources available upon request.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
This is exactly the type of behavior expected from someone whom's argument has been effectively nullified.
What was my argument and did you prove me wrong? Proving me bias isn't proving me wrong. Israel. Is. Dirty!

quote:
You can't proceed with your argument because you know it has no credibility due to its biased nature,
Bias and credibility. Oil and water.

quote:
so you resort to trying to bait someone into an immature pissing match out of spite and vindictiveness. Nice try but no cigar.
All the copying and pasting you've been doing? You've been pissing like a racehorse!

quote:
Members like you, oshun, negrospiritual, and purnata that are tenaciously trying to villanize Israel
Trying? Hah! Israel don't need my help, that fo'sho! Israel is dirty!

quote:
yet ignore the role Palestine has played in this conflict since the 1920's


Okay...

The arabs in palestine protested that it was not cool that they had to bear the whole burden of these refugees since "European Xians", not arabs, were responsible for their suffering.

quote:
as well as the role the Hamas has played in contemporary history


If I did that now, I'd merely be paying lip service.

quote:
to prove someone wrong while
I never said anybody, on this thread at least was wrong. My premise... Israel is DIRTY!!!

quote:
And just like you, raptor, couldn't figure out that if Israel has the right to arrest foreign vessels even in peace time that they most definately have the right to initiate a sea and a ground blockade under war time circumstances.
What's like me?

You tried to 'ah-ha' me with misinformation, then attempted to question my ability to comprehend it. Well, truth be told, I could not comprehend the 'in ren' because it is impertinent the boat incident regarding mckinny.


quote:
That's long been a problem on this discussion board. When you incounter members that won't just lay down and let you walk all over them
19 Perhaps, that is a problem. Here's a solution I'll give a flowers to, whomever, if they just lay down and let me walk all over them.
Problem solved.

quote:
you resort to condescending remarks, deflecting, redirecting, reverse child psychology
After I count to three, you will fall asleep.

1--2---3! sleep

quote:
and baiting comments while cheering each other on and patting each others backs.


Imma let you in on a secret... I'm not a good multi-tasker. Frown

quote:
You all are more interested in trying to undermine someone's argument,
Quite frankly, I don't have the stamina to attempt such a feat.

quote:
trying to belittle people and prove you know how to spot the conspiracies and the villains behind the conspiracies, as if you all were clarivoyant or omniscient, rather than discuss the issue objectively


musicGenerals gathered in their masses,
just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
sorcerers of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds.
Oh lord, yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away.
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah.

Time will tell on their power minds,
making war just for fun.
Treating people just like pawns in chess,
wait till their judgement day comes, yeah.

Now in darkness world stops turning,
ashes where the bodies burning.
No more War Pigs have the power,
Hand of God has struck the hour.
Day of judgement, God is calling,
on their knees the war pigs crawling.
Begging mercies for their sins,
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings.
Oh lord, yeah! music
Last edited {1}
raptor: Your participation in this thread is no longer valid due to the fact that you lack the ability to investigate this conflict, which is the oldest running conflict in the world, from a different perspective.

oshun: You're the one that made the "Zionists" and "Judaism" post but you're trying to criticize me for quoting what I deemed to be logical from your own post? When you get to the point of trying to further complicate an already complex issue by inserting classifications of the various sub-cultures of Jews when you are of no authority to determine who should come back to an originally Jewish dominated state is futile.

The simple fact of the matter is many of the originally indigenous Jews were all but wiped out by the Romans during their occupation in the region. Whoever remained were dispersed around the world. Obviously, those remaining handfuls of indigenous Jews died out over the decades but saught to replenish their numbers with the remaining indigenous Jews as well as with the peoples of the various countries they were dispersed to.

Therefore, even though Ashkenazi Jews account for a significant population of Jews, it is extremely difficult to determine who are Ashkenazi Jews and who are actual descendants of the original Jews of Israel before "The Diaspora." There's only that pesky little issue you refuse to acknowledge, oshun, as you are blinded by your anti-American, anti-European, anti-white, fundamentalist militance, of millions of Jews being killed off and dispersed throughout the decades. But who cares right? They don't deserve to come to Israel. Israel belongs to the Palestines by forfeit right? The hell outta here with that garbage.

Kocoliscious:The attempt to further muddle an already complicated Jewish history by inserting biblical chronology and suggesting that Jews' sole purpose for reoccupying what could have been Israeli/Palestinian states only served to distract from what is historical truth. The truth is, Jews were the original dominate culture of Israel and were decimated and dispersed all around the world by the hand of the Romans and then further decimated by the Germans and further dispersed around the world. That's not biblical. That's a historical fact.
Last edited {1}
quote:
raptor: Your participation in this thread is no longer valid due to the fact that you lack the ability to investigate this conflict, which is the oldest running conflict in the world, from a different perspective..


You know that slight sting your feeling? That's pride fukcing with you, Fukc pride! Pride only hurts, it never helps.

..."From a different perspective" Wink
Sometimes it takes hitting closer to home in order to open the eyes of fundamentalists.



Lets just say for the sake of argument American Indians decided to form a terrorist group called 'Geronimo' out of the primal desire to take back North America--except the Geronimo don't want to take back North America. They obviously don't have the capacity to capture North America, so instead they congregate in Phoenix, Arizona and facilitate a large build up of artilery and supplies supplied them via tunnels from Mexico, through which Puerto Rico is further supplying them.

The Geronimo decide to rocket the hell out of Los Angeles, Oakland, Dallas, and Houston. Now of course, North America is the American Indians' ritful land right? But wait a minute. How about the rest of the 240 million Americans that were born and raised here? Surely we deserve this land because we are currently the dominant culture here. Why don't we just leave. But wait a minute--many of us have nowhere else to go. So, the Geronimo continue rocketing Southern California and Half of Texas.

Now hold on just one minute. We can't be held responsible for what our forefathers did to the American Indians. In fact, many of us came along later as immigrants and as slaves, so we can't help it if we've already been here for centuries. Meanwhile, members of the Geronimo send suicide bombers to various malls and post offices around the country where they bomb and kill hundreds of innocent civilians and injure thousands more. The local authorities are overwhelmingly outgunned as the members of Geronimo prove to be harder and harder to go after as they have imbedded themselves deep in various areas of the state of Arizona where the vast populus are innocent American civilians.

The American government has to step in and fire rockets into Arizona, more specifically, Phoenix because its simply too dangerous to send ground troops into phoenix and extract the Geronimo. The American government also has to inact blockades in rivers and on interstates to stop supplies from being delivered to the Geronimo.

Meanwhile, the Geronimo increases rocket fire into half of Texas and Southern Calirornia. No one in particular is targeted. The rockets just hit various urban and rural areas killing hundreds of innocent American citizens. I mean--come on--the Geronimo should keep fighting till the last man because North America is rightfully theirs.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government can no longer stand by and watch the Geronimo aimlessly attack various cities in the U.S., so they start rocketing various areas in Arizona. Many areas where members of Geronimo are bombed and Geronimo members are killed but innocent American civilians are also killed.

The international community condemns the Geronimo for aimlessly rocketing various cities in the U.S. and sending suicide bombers around the country to kill thousands of American citizens. The international community also condemns the U.S. government for taking land away from the American Indians, bombing Arizona, and breaking treaties in the past with American Indians. Both the U.S. government and the Geronimo reject efforts by various members of the international community to enact a truce and the waring goes on. Now, what would you do?
quote:
Lets just say for the sake of argument American Indians decided to form a terrorist group called 'Geronimo' out of the primal desire to take back North America--except the Geronimo don't want to take back North America. They obviously don't have the capacity to capture North America, so instead they congregate in Phoenix, Arizona and facilitate a large build up of artilery and supplies supplied them via tunnels from Mexico, through which Puerto Rico is further supplying them.
For the sake of argument, why would "Geronimo" wanna gather ordinance to use against north amerikkka? What did the other inhabitants in north amerikkka do to bring on this "primal desire"?
Before we go any further, why is geronimo buggin'?
Romulus, to make your hypo relevant to the Gaza situation you'd have to add/change some "facts" like:

1) These Geronimo "terrorists" must hail from the ethnic majority of the region.
2) These Geronimo "terrorists"'s people must by limited to living on a reservation, if they desire any semblance of self-determination, or recognition of human/civil rights.
3) This reservation must be surrounded by an ethnic minority, but be supported be other world powers. And finally [but not endingly, though most importantly],
4) The ethnic minority must have, and exercise, the power to close off the reservation to food, water, medicine, electricity and all commerce, at will and on a whim.

Only with these few alterations will your hypo approach relevance in a discussion related to Gaza.
Originally posted by Romulus
quote:
Kocoliscious:The attempt to further muddle an already complicated Jewish history by inserting biblical chronology and suggesting that Jews' sole purpose for reoccupying what could have been Israeli/Palestinian states only served to distract from what is historical truth. The truth is, Jews were the original dominate culture of Israel and were decimated and dispersed all around the world by the hand of the Romans and then further decimated by the Germans and further dispersed around the world. That's not biblical. That's a historical fact.



fro Muddle? I'm not trying to muddle anything. Okay. Let's talk HISTORY and the responsibility of those who SNATCHED away LAND that doesn't belong to them. As I said earlier, look at America, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were both instrumental in making sure the INDIANS could NOT live on their land. So. This is what happened. The Europeans come over to the so-called "new world" well....it wasn't NEW to the "Indians" who had been living here for THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS OF YEARS....

Anyway...let just look at how arrogant the European's perspective is regarding other human beings they ENCROACHED on through violence and barbaric behavior. Jefferson for instance-had a BLACK mistress who had 10 children and kept them underneath the white house, he believed that the Indians like the Blacks endowed with innate "moral sense of right and wrong...which liken to tasting and feeling as every man and says both the Indian and the Black are a part of a native but the distinction is in the area of intelligence. But look what he did to them. He says "I am safe in affirming that the proofs of the genius given by the Indian of North America places them on the same level of the white man. I believe the Indian to be body and mind equal to the white man and suppose the Black man in his present state is NOT." Now this is to justify slavery of Africans and to justify the many male white settlers shacking up Indian women and having children by them and taking THEIR LAND. Even though Jefferson was busy having children by a Black woman. Still we were subhumans to him....but! Not the Indian...and yet it NEVER stopped his mistreatment of them.

What does this mean or what am I trying to convey? The Indian lived in America long before the white man....do you see massa trying to give the Indian back ANY of the land he took? Hell Nawl. Is there a committee i.e United Nation saying..."well since the Indians have had this land 5,000 years ago, it is only RIGHT that we give it back to them?" Are they saying that? Nope. Not at all. And we all know the Europeans did the Indians far worse than they EVER did the Jews....far worse.

And then if you want to talk about HISTORY. Let's not forget what racist Andrew Jackson did! He strategized a methaphysics Indian-hating campaign [the same as the palenstian-hating campaign conducted by America and her allies]. In fact as President Jackson, he declared he was "ready to lead the nation in the removal of the Indian." Which meant ALL Indians!

Although Jackson claimed time after time to be just and human toward the Indian, the programs and fraudulent treaties he developed were solely for the dismantlement of Indian tribes throughout prime American land. His scam forced the Indian away from HIS LAND, his culture and way of living, ....Jackson did this through VIOLENCE, disease and harassment. And then forced the Indian to take a very small piece of land to live on.....if not Jackson would ablige and kill them all. He threatened them to accept the reservation form of living....THREATENED!

SO. This is the SAME EXACT method done to the Palestinians. The VERY identical thang. So you can say what you want....don't change a thang. The Europeans are the ones to nearly WIPE out the Jews....The Europeans in fact damn near exterminated most of the Indians in America... So why do the Jews get to go so-called "home"....and the Indians cannot? Is that fair? Is that right? The Indian was the originial occupant in America just as YOU say the Jew is to Palestine.

In addition, history says the wars brought on by the Europeans [1813-1814] and [1832-1836] in America...just to name a few is responsible for the exdous of the Amerindians...... So why does MASSA get to say a gdamn thang in terms of who can go where? When it's a HISOTRICAL FACT, he will not give the Amerindians the SAME consideration..and give them back ALL their land. You tell me, what makes the JEW better? And we're not even talking about South America....or even Africa.

BTW: My name is spelled: K.O.C.O.L.I.C.I.O.U.S.
I think you mispelled it deliberatelyRoll Eyes fro
It isn't as important to make my hypothetical scenario relevant to the Israel-Palestinian conflict as it is important to generate a hypothetical that would be more applicable to the U.S.

The fact remains that if people are so interested in making Israel out to be an evil, Jewish, imperialist oppressor and the Hamas out to be the freedom fighting, protagonistic, warriors that stand for what is right and just, then they need to take into account what would happen if they were under similar circumstances here in the states.

If its okay for the Hamas to aimlessly bomb Israel with rockets while being being engaged in the cowardly act of being integrated amongst Palestinian civilians, then it should be okay for "The Geronimo" to do the same--aimlessly bomb Los Angeles, Oakland, Houston, and Dallas while integrated amongst American citizens in Phoenix, Arizona.

If it's okay for The Hamas to send suicide bombers into Jerusalem and bomb random targets, then it should be okay for "The Geronimo" to send suicide bombers into various malls, post offices, coffee shops, and libraries.

For, as oshun suggests, if the Ashkenazi jews have no right to come to claim Israel, then the Pilgrams and subsequently the U.S. government had no right to claim North America. Therefore we are just as wrong for inhabiting North America as the Israelis are wrong for inhabiting Palestine. If there is nothing wrong with the Hamas killing Israeli citizens, then there's nothing wrong with "The Geronimo" killing American citizens because Palestine belongs to the Palestinians just as North America rightfully belongs to the American Indians.

But here's the deal with a militant separatist like oshun. It wouldn't matter to her if everyone left North America. Since she has relatives in Canada she would run to Canada or become a permanent missionary in some South African country. No big deal for her except one thing: That would be beyond arrogant and downright stupid not to mention selfish to have such blatant disregard for how 240 million other Americans would feel.
quote:
What does this mean or what am I trying to convey? The Indian lived in America long before the white man....do you see massa trying to give the Indian back ANY of the land he took? Hell Nawl.


Are you going to leave North America because this land rightfully belongs to the American Indians? Hell nawl!

Would you be cool with the American Indians bombing your hometown--killing some of your friends and relatives--because you know this land belongs to the Indians. Hell nawl!
quote:
The fact remains that if people are so interested in making Israel out to be an evil, Jewish, imperialist oppressor and the Hamas out to be the freedom fighting, protagonistic, warriors that stand for what is right and just, then they need to take into account what would happen if they were under similar circumstances here in the states.


That was the reason for my suggestion that the hypo be changed ... to make the circumstances similar.

But that said, I have not read where anyone said that what Hamas [actually, Hamas sympathizers/Hamas lackeys] is/are doing is Okay. What I have read is that their actions are understandable and, in some quarters, justifiable.

I my view, it always takes two to fight and in this case, I strongly believe that if the state of israeli would pull back to its '67 (?) borders and provide the palistinians with material and technical support for self-governance AND loosen its strangle hold on the west bank/gaza, the rockets would cease to be fired.

But that's just MHO.
Originally posted by Romulus
quote:
Are you going to leave North America because this land rightfully belongs to the American Indians? Hell nawl!

Would you be cool with the American Indians bombing your hometown--killing some of your friends and relatives--because you know this land belongs to the Indians. Hell nawl!



fro As usual....you MISS your point..,when you say that the Jews were the original occupants of Israel/Palestine....which gives them the RIGHT to be there. I'm just saying the SAME you are in that the Amerindians are the ORIGINIAL occupants of America. But! They weren't given their land back in the way the Jews were given Israel. Roll Eyes And you don't have to worry about the Indians bombing anyone here in America cuz as I said earlier Jefferson and Jackson took care of that! Most of them are extinct! fro
quote:
Originally posted by Kocolicious:
Originally posted by Romulus
quote:
Are you going to leave North America because this land rightfully belongs to the American Indians? Hell nawl!

Would you be cool with the American Indians bombing your hometown--killing some of your friends and relatives--because you know this land belongs to the Indians. Hell nawl!



fro As usual....you MISS your point..,when you say that the Jews were the original occupants of Israel/Palestine....which gives them the RIGHT to be there. I'm just saying the SAME you are in that the Amerindians are the ORIGINIAL occupants of America. But! They weren't given their land back in the way the Jews were given Israel. Roll Eyes And you don't have to worry about the Indians bombing anyone here in America cuz as I said earlier Jefferson and Jackson took care of that! Most of them are extinct! fro


I didn't miss my point. I made a new point. The new point is, if oshun wanted to add the fact that many of the jews are Ashkenazi and supposedely do not have the right to go to or return to Israel, then we don't have a right to be here in the states.
Originally posted by Romulus
quote:
I didn't miss my point. I made a new point. The new point is, if oshun wanted to add the fact that many of the jews are Ashkenazi and supposedely do not have the right to go to or return to Israel, then we don't have a right to be here in the states.


fro We? We? Apples and Oranges. Our, Black people, circumstances ARE totally DIFFERENT from the Jews. We were BROUGHT here AGAINST our will. And as far as RIGHTS go, if ANYBODY who deserves to BE HERE...that would be US! Since of course we set the stage for excellence in the country....we built it with our BLOOD, brains, SWEAT, and DEATH! Are we talking about the SAME thing? I doubt it. You cannot possibly compare us with the Jews.... I haven't heard of them building any dynamic wealthy NATION....as a result of FREE labor for over 400 years. Have you? fro
quote:
Originally posted by Kocolicious:
Originally posted by Romulus
quote:
I didn't miss my point. I made a new point. The new point is, if oshun wanted to add the fact that many of the jews are Ashkenazi and supposedely do not have the right to go to or return to Israel, then we don't have a right to be here in the states.


fro We? We? Apples and Oranges. Our, Black people, circumstances ARE totally DIFFERENT from the Jews. We were BROUGHT here AGAINST our will. And as far as RIGHTS go, if ANYBODY who deserves to BE HERE...that would be US! Since of course we set the stage for excellence in the country....we built it with our BLOOD, brains, SWEAT, and DEATH! Are we talking about the SAME thing? I doubt it. You cannot possibly compare us with the Jews.... I haven't heard of them building any dynamic wealthy NATION....as a result of FREE labor for over 400 years. Have you? fro


It doesn't matter how we got here. What matters is we're not indigenous to this country.

It doesn't matter how anyone else got here. If they aren't American Indian they don't belong here.
Actually, the two revolutionary Native Amerikkkan organizations that have displayed solidarity with the Pan African struggle... A.I.M(Amerikkkan Indian Movement) and W.A.R.{Women of all Red Nations) have given expressed permission for our residing on this land because of the circumstances in which we were brought here, and refer to African people in Amerikkka as 'blood brothers' in the struggle against our commen enemy, imperialism...
quote:


Someone is confusing Askenazim dominated(culturally and politically) Zionist Israel with Jewish history. the Ashkenazi Jews (European converts to Judaism under from the Khazar Empire) aren't even the 'Jews' that lived in the area...Those are the Sephardim/Mizrahim. So they are not 'returning' to their homeland any more than Central Amerikkkan Aztec Catholics would be 'returning' to their homeland if they tried to colonize Rome Italy because they happen to be Catholic now.

......The Ashkenazim also discriminate against the other "Black Jews" the Beta Israel/Falasha Ethiopian Jews, the Sephardim, Mizrahim, & Yemenese ect. because they say they don't want "Jewish culture" to become 'orientaized'...

You need to familiarize yourself with the roots of modern Zionism. It has little if nothing to do with Jewish history or religion(accept as an excuse)...

I could tell long ago your basis of loyalty was a result of this confusion.

Theodore Herzl, the atheist Zionist ideological founder preferred Mozambique, Kenya, and Uganda as locations for Israel, and considered other parts of S. Amerikkka and Asia prior to 1948, but couldn't come up with the gross reinterpretation of Judaic aspirations along lines congruent with European colonial expansion to set up an exclusive bourgeoisie, imperialist, Talmudic/Ashkenazi(white Khazar convert) dominated, Jewish state for anywhere else but Palestine....

http://www.serendipity.li/zionism.htm

...Zionism represents itself as a political movement concerned principally with the establishment of a state in Palestine to be controlled by and for Jews. It began in the late 19th Century and attained its stated objective with the creation in 1948 of the state of Israel by the United Nations (at the insistence of the United States and without the agreement of existing Middle Eastern states). Subsequently Israel doubled the amount of territory it controlled by means of its illegal occupation of the West Bank as a result of the military aggression carried out by it in 1967 and 1973.

In its current form Zionism seeks to dominate all of Palestine and the Middle East by means of violence and the threat of violence (using weapons manufactured and purchased with billions of dollars of "aid" supplied by the United States) and to maximize its influence in world affairs and in world history, principally by means of control of the government of the U.S.A. (primarily by blackmailing its politicians), at the expense of the social wellbeing not only of the Palestinians but of the peoples of all lands.

Zionism is not a part of the Jewish religion, but rather is parasitic upon it. Most Zionists are Jews, but not all Jews are Zionists. To condemn Zionism as immoral (racist, vicious and depraved) is not to condemn Judaism.

Zionists claim that Jews have the right to possess all land between the Nile and the Euphrates because (they say) this land was given to them by some entity they call "YHWH" as claimed in the Old Testament (Genesis 15:18). But this would not be the first time that documents written by humans were used to justify land grabs. (And this "YHWH" appears, from accounts in the Old Testament, to be a particularly repulsive entity, vain, jealous, given to fits of rage and directing his followers to massacre civilian populations "” an entity who, if he existed, would be quite unworthy of the devotion of anyone with a sense of justice and morality.)

Zionists also lay claim to Palestine because this was territory controlled by two Jewish mini-states, Judah and Samaria, until their destruction by the Romans in the 1st C. CE. To which may be replied: If Zionist claims to a Jewish "homeland" in Palestine, based on Jewish occupation of that area 2000 years ago, are accepted as valid then the claims of North American Indians to their former homeland (all of the United States) and the claims of Australian Aborigines to their former homeland (all of Australia) should also be accepted as valid, and those homelands returned. Not to mention the descendants of the inhabitants of countless mini-states which have risen and fallen over the course of thousands of years of human history. Jews have no more rights than anyone else.

Zionists are not content with having acquired a state of their own in Palestine, they also want this state to be for-Jews-only, thus the desire and intention to expel from Israeli-controlled territory all the indigenous inhabitants (a practice sometimes known as ethnic cleansing, a concept derived from the Nazi practice of "cleansing" areas of all Jews).


The idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist movement from its very beginnings, first appearing in Theodore Herzl's diary. In practice, the Zionists began executing a mini-transfer from the time they began purchasing the land and evacuating the Arab tenants.... "Disappearing" the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition of its existence.... With few exceptions, none of the Zionists disputed the desirability of forced transfer "” or its morality. "” Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete : Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate, quoted at http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm
The Palestinians, being Arabs, are Semites. By their open contempt for, and racist persecution of, the Palestinians the Israelis show that it is they who are the real anti-Semites, and their accusations of anti-Semitism (and the accusations of their American and European coreligionists) cast at all who criticise Jews or Israel amount to no more than blatant hypocrisy.

Zionism and Judaism
Zionism should not be equated with Judaism. The contemptible treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli government (supported and approved of by most Israelis) is not supported by all Jews. There are some Jews who are totally opposed to Zionism and to Israel's policies in the occupied territories of the West Bank. Here are two websites which express this position:

Jews Against Zionism

Not In My Name

Zionism is ... racist, it is nationalist, and it is Biblically inspired (rather than spiritually inspired). Being a fundamentalist movement, Zionism is not categorically different from Nazism. Only when we understand Zionism in its nationalist and racist context will we begin to comprehend the depth of its atrocities. "” Gilad Atzmon

http://africanamerica.org/eve/...421062231#4421062231


When and How the Jewish People Was Invented?

The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and its Heritage



I agree with most of the article except for the part I striked out... it never ceases to amaze me how people want to criticize the God of the Old Testament (even if they are atheists) which was the God that the ancient BLACK HEBREWS worshipped. Because he doesn't fit some "turn the other cheek" blond haired and blue eyed false christianity definition of what God should be like.

Yet this entire system of moral laws was built on the principles that were laid out by the same God they criticize such as the Ten Commandments. Now granted these laws were meant to be implemented by the Black Hebrews FIRST but we failed (which is partially why we are in our current situation)... but I will deal with this in more depth at a later date.

Anyway, regarding this current subject....

The above post I quoted should be the bottom line to this discussion since those imposters over there posing as the 'Jews' are not the real descendants of the ancient Hebrews PERIOD. Truth be told neither the Ashkenazi 'Jews' OR the Arabic Palestinians belong there... they all started inhabiting that land AFTER the BLACK DYNASTIES of the area fell....just like what happened in Egypt which it's real name is Mizraim after it's founder who was the younger brother of Cush who we all know was BLACK. They were both descendant's of Noah from the Hamitic/African lineage. Cush founded the historical Kingdom of Kush (modern Sudan) and we all see the Arabic inspired mixed breed janjaweed trying to erase Africans and African culture in Darfur TODAY... right before our eyes.

If they succeed hundreds of years from now people will think Sudan is an Arabic country...that's why today Egypt is FALSELY considered an 'Arabic" state. Read the destruction of Black civilization by Chancellor Williams and it will show the pattern of how this was done throughout history starting with multi-racial people infiltrating and "redifining" us.
Originally posted by Romulus
quote:
It doesn't matter how we got here. What matters is we're not indigenous to this country.

It doesn't matter how anyone else got here. If they aren't American Indian they don't belong here.



fro So. Your point? Didn't you just asked me and answered at the same time" Are you going to leave North America because this land rightfully belongs to the American Indians? Hell nawl! So since you said that! Why in the Hell would the Palestinians LEAVE a place they've been for over 500 plus years?Eek huh?

And you also asked and answered Would you be cool with the American Indians bombing your hometown--killing some of your friends and relatives--because you know this land belongs to the Indians. Hell nawl! It's the SAME thing. You kept saying "home"...It is NOT their home ANYMORE...if it EVER was. I don't think you understand that. And your point seems pointless.

First off as I said earlier and you dismissed it, there are few Amerindians to worry about being bombed by since massa exteriminated most of them through disease, alcohol and DEATH..and let's not forget the "reservations" designed to suffocate their culture. And that famous campaign "Methaphysics of Indian-hating" developed by Andrew Jackson and his boys WORKED! Cuz there are NOT that many Indians around. You need to read "No more lies" by Dick Gregory....and he will fill you in on what REALLY happened to our fellow Indian brothers/sisters. Cuz the European was a true "terrorist" when it came to snatching the land from them.

Anyway, your point does not MAKE any sense. You want to indicated that since the Jews wrote in their "religious" document that Israel is their promised land....and cuz their history of being displaced and mistreated by the European...this gives them the RIGHT to go back to so-called Israel. The truth of the matter is the Jews NEVER had a homeland....that was created through their religious rhetoric....their share the same DNA with their other semetic counterparts....in that they are the bastard children of the European/Asian masters who raped African women[turning them into concubines/harlots i.e. harems]and transformed their male children into soldiers against the European and the African.

The Jews STOLE the sacred documents from the existing BLACK jews....and when everybody had that meeting in Alexandria, Egypt....they decided in this conference to develop three main religious systems: Christianity, Islam and Judiah....all to control the masses. If any those stories/fables were TRUTH, Muhummad would come down from his mountain, Jesus would rise from the dead and the Talmud who assigned a private messiah and everybody would get together and whup massa's ass for putting us in this mess in the first place....but! It's not HAPPENING! Cuz why? The so-called religious stories/fables are CONJECTURE! Fairytales. Bottom line. That land belong to the people who have BEEN there,not the people who are COMING back after 2 thousand yearsRoll Eyes

But because everyone involved in this think they are right....the fight have lasted.....how long? ..for over two thousands years....not the thing about Israel/Palestine...this despute is fairly new and it is just two brothers fighting over a piece of land promised in a book written by massa. For the most part....not one of them have a PLACE TO CALL home. Fighting over this religious thing is a condition created by...AGAIN... you know who.... Cuz in real life...geographically....there is no such thing as semetic land...there is Africa, Asia, Europe....but no semetic land. And that's what they are FIGHTING OVER! Something that really doesn't exist but only in their brainwashed minds.... It's sad cuz the only ones to suffer in this man-made conflict are the women and children...but! If you want to continue to believe what you believe......then you will be among the many who have fallen for this crap for the last thousand years.

BTW: Just cuz they say it's HISTORY...doesn't mean it's so. Cuz why? They. Are. Liars! fro
Originally by LieDecrypter
quote:
I agree with most of the article except for the part I striked out... it never ceases to amaze me how people want to criticize the God of the Old Testament (even if they are atheists) which was the God that the ancient BLACK HEBREWS worshipped. Because he doesn't fit some "turn the other cheek"O blond haired and blue eyed false christianity definition of what God should be like.

Yet this entire system of moral laws was built on the principles that were laid out by the same God they criticize such as the Ten Commandments. Now granted these laws were meant to be implemented by the Black Hebrews FIRST but we failed (which is partially why we are in our current situation)... but I will deal with this in more depth at a later date.

Anyway, regarding this current subject....

The above post I quoted should be the bottom line to this discussion since those imposters over there posing as the 'Jews' are not the real descendants of the ancient Hebrews PERIOD. Truth be told neither the Ashkenazi 'Jews' OR the Arabic Palestinians belong there... they all started inhabiting that land AFTER the BLACK DYNASTIES of the area fell....just like what happened in Egypt which it's real name is Mizraim after it's founder who was the younger brother of Cush who we all know was BLACK. They were both descendant's of Noah from the Hamitic/African lineage. Cush founded the historical Kingdom of Kush (modern Sudan) and we all see the Arabic inspired mixed breed janjaweed trying to erase Africans and African culture in Darfur TODAY... right before our eyes.

If they succeed hundreds of years from now people will think Sudan is an Arabic country...that's why today Egypt is FALSELY considered an 'Arabic" state. Read the destruction of Black civilization by Chancellor Williams and it will show the pattern of how this was done throughout history starting with multi-racial people infiltrating and "redifining" us.



fro appl I don't have to add a thing! You are sooooooooo right! Get 'em my brotha! Let the truth be told.

BTW: I've read the "Destruction of Black Civilizations" By Chancellor Williams five times! fro
quote:
So. Your point? Didn't you just asked me and answered at the same time" Are you going to leave North America because this land rightfully belongs to the American Indians? Hell nawl! So since you said that! Why in the Hell would the Palestinians LEAVE a place they've been for over 500 plus years? huh?


Okay. This is beginning to go nowhere because you want to start arguing over semantics.

Even though the history of "The Black Jews" is compeling as well as relevant there are no descendants of black jews (as far as I know) currently in Israel fighting the Hamas over the control of Israel or Gaza or whatever the hell it is they're fighting over. As far as Palestine, the Palestinians and arabic peoples in question we also already know their tainted past in dealing with Africans. In fact, that issue was discussed a long, long time ago here on this discussion board.

The conversation of neither the Israelis nor Palestinians not deserving the land their currently on is a good topic too but one that could be better discussed in another thread. The point is we're dealing with what's going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians now and the series of events that have occured in history that has led up to the conflict they're currently in.
quote:
Originally posted by LieDecrypter:
I agree with most of the article except for the part I striked out... it never ceases to amaze me how people want to criticize the God of the Old Testament (even if they are atheists) which was the God that the ancient BLACK HEBREWS worshipped. Because he doesn't fit some "turn the other cheek" blond haired and blue eyed false christianity definition of what God should be like.

Yet this entire system of moral laws was built on the principles that were laid out by the same God they criticize such as the Ten Commandments. Now granted these laws were meant to be implemented by the Black Hebrews FIRST but we failed (which is partially why we are in our current situation)... but I will deal with this in more depth at a later date.

Anyway, regarding this current subject....


Oh lord... We were/are not the Haribu... YHWH was the 'power of nature' of Volcanos & war(Kinda like Ogun) that was made into the 'only deity' of patriarchal monotheists. When will we escape the Semetic paradigm Africans? We have our own balanced spiritual sciences... The '10 commandments' had nothing to do with us being here.

quote:
The above post I quoted should be the bottom line to this discussion since those imposters over there posing as the 'Jews' are not the real descendants of the ancient Hebrews PERIOD. Truth be told neither the Ashkenazi 'Jews' OR the Arabic Palestinians belong there... they all started inhabiting that land AFTER the BLACK DYNASTIES of the area fell....just like what happened in Egypt which it's real name is Mizraim after it's founder who was the younger brother of Cush who we all know was BLACK. They were both descendant's of Noah from the Hamitic/African lineage. Cush founded the historical Kingdom of Kush (modern Sudan) and we all see the Arabic inspired mixed breed janjaweed trying to erase Africans and African culture in Darfur TODAY... right before our eyes.


PArtically asiatic interlopers started their meddling long before this latest incarnation. Hyksos anyone?

quote:
If they succeed hundreds of years from now people will think Sudan is an Arabic country...that's why today Egypt is FALSELY considered an 'Arabic" state. Read the destruction of Black civilization by Chancellor Williams and it will show the pattern of how this was done throughout history starting with multi-racial people infiltrating and "redifining" us.


Like those who hijacked the KeMeTic spiritual sciences knows as the Haribu perhaps? No better than the Janjaweed...
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Oh lord... We were/are not the Haribu... YHWH was the 'power of nature' of Volcanos & war(Kinda like Ogun) that was made into the 'only deity' of patriarchal monotheists. When will we escape the Semetic paradigm Africans? We have our own balanced spiritual sciences... The '10 commandments' had nothing to do with us being here.


"When will we escape the Semetic paradigm Africans?"...you ask? I find this to be an odd question considering the fact that the first and real "Semitic" people were BLACK.

For those who may not be aware the name "Semite" is derived from and is in reference to the descendents of SHEM who was a son of Noah. Which as I mentioned earlier one of Noah's other sons (Ham) had descendents who established the first African civilizations i.e., the Kingdom of Kush (modern Sudan) and Mizraim (modern Egypt).

If Ham who was the father of the Hamitic people and the southern African Kingdoms was Black... would that not make Shem (the father of the Semitic people) Black also? The only difference is Shem's descendents the "Semites" branched off to the northern parts of Africa. One of Shem's descendents was named Eber or Heber which is where we get the name HEBREW. One of Eber's descendents was named Abraham who was the grandfather of Jacob who's name was later changed to ISRAEL....Israel had twelve sons one of which was named Judah from whence we get JEW. Along with his brothers 'Judah' had his own tribe this is where we get the TWELVE TRIBES of ISRAEL.

Now following this lineage one can easily deduce that the northern African 'Semitic/Hebrew/Judea' culture is in FACT just as much a part of BLACK history and culture as the southern African 'Hamitic/Cushite/Mizriamite' culture that you and many Blacks so faithfully celebrate.

The reason Blacks don't celebrate the former culture is because they have bought into the very lie that even YOU have exposed... which is that those people there now fighting over that land are the real 'Jews' which they are NOT.

So now if this is true and the REAL ancient Hebrews were Black why on earth would we seek to 'escape from the Semetic paradigm Africans' as you suggested? would that not be tantamount to trying to escape from any other BLACK CULTURE?..Something that up until now I thought you would be vehemently opposed to...which is why I found your question odd.

P.S. the ancient Hebrews did not view their God as simply the 'power of nature' they viewed their God as a persona not just a series of events and natural phenomena.

Oh, and I noticed that you prefaced your statement with the term 'Oh Lord'. Tell me which Lord would you be referring to the one over the Volcanos or the one over War? I'm not trying to be sarcastic I really would like to know....
quote:
When will we escape the Semetic paradigm Africans?"...you ask? I find this to be an odd question considering the fact that the first and real "Semitic" people were BLACK.


LieDecrypter

I think, the point that Oshun Auset is making, and she may correct me if I'm wrong, is that we don’t have to qualify the afrikan –anything, by attaching an allegorical noah-theme myth to it. All the shem ham japeth stuff were used as a means to distinguish different skin colors or race of the peoples in that region regarding the epoch in question. That the afrikan needed no haribu mythological and or secular classification to establish their own afrikan identity.

Dr. Ben tells us:

“HAMITE and SEMITE are names adopted from Hebrew mythology (written and developed in Hellenic Greece) as written in the Torah and Christian Bible. These words have no authoritative relationship to Africa, her indigenous peoples, cultures or things African. They are racist in origin and bigoted in practice… For nowhere in recorded history written by Africans or other ancient peoples of the era in question, is there any mention of HAMITES and SEMITES, before their appearance in their Jewish or Christian advocates’.”
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
When will we escape the Semetic paradigm Africans?"...you ask? I find this to be an odd question considering the fact that the first and real "Semitic" people were BLACK.


LieDecrypter

I think, the point that Oshun Auset is making, and she may correct me if I'm wrong, is that we don’t have to qualify the afrikan –anything, by attaching an allegorical noah-theme myth to it. All the shem ham japeth stuff were used as a means to distinguish different skin colors or race of the peoples in that region regarding the epoch in question. That the afrikan needed no haribu mythological and or secular classification to establish their own afrikan identity.

Dr. Ben tells us:

“HAMITE and SEMITE are names adopted from Hebrew mythology (written and developed in Hellenic Greece) as written in the Torah and Christian Bible. These words have no authoritative relationship to Africa, her indigenous peoples, cultures or things African. They are racist in origin and bigoted in practice… For nowhere in recorded history written by Africans or other ancient peoples of the era in question, is there any mention of HAMITES and SEMITES, before their appearance in their Jewish or Christian advocates’.”


thanks And why would we use such late coming Semetic terminology(which came about after the Asiatic invasions, no coincidence) when the first African people's were not Semetic, nor are the current majority, including our direct ancestors from West and Central Africa. The only reason we as a people focus on such late on the scene myths and terms from that particular region... when there is an entire continent at our cultural/mythological disposal... is because that is where our oppressors focus. We need to be on our own agenda, not theirs.
Last edited {1}
Originially posted by Romulus
quote:
Okay. This is beginning to go nowhere because you want to start arguing over semantics.

Even though the history of "The Black Jews" is compeling as well as relevant there are no descendants of black jews (as far as I know) currently in Israel fighting the Hamas over the control of Israel or Gaza or whatever the hell it is they're fighting over. As far as Palestine, the Palestinians and arabic peoples in question we also already know their tainted past in dealing with Africans. In fact, that issue was discussed a long, long time ago here on this discussion board.

The conversation of neither the Israelis nor Palestinians not deserving the land their currently on is a good topic too but one that could be better discussed in another thread. The point is we're dealing with what's going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians now and the series of events that have occured in history that has led up to the conflict they're currently in.


fro Young brotha...young brotha...the Ethiopians Israel rescued ARE BLACK JEWS.... I don't know however if they are in fact in the Israeli army fighting the cause... I can't answer that question with clarity..... however, you refused to see the correlation with what was DONE to the Indians and how you say what was DONE to the original land owners of Israel/Palestine. It hasn't even been 500 years over here....and yet 500 years over there gives them the RIGHT to have a land that has occupied by another culture for that long.... can't you see how ridiculous that is for another culture [just like the Indians] to come in and CLAIM ownership of property they have NOT been LIVING on for years? Can't you see that?

Even though you can see how the Indians could not pull that off...how come the Israelis can? Plus they are conducting themselves just like massa in that they are being racist toward the darker skin Jews i.e. the Ethiopian who they WENT and got and brought "back" to Israel.[Which I still don't understand why they bothered since they treat them like "subhumans" like massa treated us....but anyway] So. Haven't you heard the quote: Those who FORGET their past....are deemed to repeat it? Well...this is the case RIGHT here. Yes we're talking about Israel/Palestine NOW...but! It is very important to KNOW and understand HOW they got to this point....and the only way to do that is to look back in the past..where it all started. I'm just saying folks may call it semantics, I call it just plain HISTORY.....fro
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:

I strongly believe that if the state of israeli would pull back to its '67 (?) borders and provide the palistinians with material and technical support for self-governance AND loosen its strangle hold on the west bank/gaza, the rockets would cease to be fired.


I don't. I forget who said it in this thread (I think Vox), but essentially Hamas is fighting just to fight. Defiance for defiance sake. And in doing so, Hamas (and the Palestinians who voted them into power) are most definitely stuck on stupid.

When Yassar Arafat walked away from the deal of a lifetime that Clinton negotiated, I knew then that the militant stakeholders in Palestine simply just wanted to fight. And there's no fixing that with border changes, food or other rational compromises - short of the total eradication of Israel, which ain't gonna happen.

And the reason that this goes on generation after generation is that embedded in their pysche is the belief that all Palestinians are soldiers in this fight, whether they want to be or not. And so, Palestinian civilian casualties or loss of peaceful living are perfectly acceptable (and even welcomed) as a necessary part of war.

There's no way to negotiate with a mindset like that.
The family that brokered the land for Israel is the de Rothschild family, and, yeah, they run all the world banks and have done so for quite a long time.


It's incredible to have enough money and persuasion to execute a protected home for your entire ethnic group (according to your faith) - and live long enough to see it come to fruition.

With that said, the de Rothschilds forgot to tell the returning Jews to re-read the Torah instructing them to take care of, feed, and embrace "the strangers in [their] land".
quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:
The family that brokered the land for Israel is the de Rothschild family, and, yeah, they run all the world banks and have done so for quite a long time.


It's incredible to have enough money and persuasion to execute a protected home for your entire ethnic group (according to your faith) - and live long enough to see it come to fruition.

With that said, the de Rothschilds forgot to tell the returning Jews to re-read the Torah instructing them to take care of, feed, and embrace "the strangers in [their] land".


They also financed the both sides of the World wars ... They financed the Nazi's, and the Russian soviets who slaughtered their folk in massacres... They basicaly funded the deaths of 'their people'... I think they could really give a rat's a$$ about 'their people'... They have far larger plans for just themsellllves. The ruling class looks at the rest of the population of the world as means to their ends.
Hamas' statement...

This brutality will never break our will to be free

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...06/gaza-israel-hamas

o Khalid Mish'al
o The Guardian, Tuesday 6 January 2009

For 18 months my people in Gaza have been under siege, incarcerated inside the world's biggest prison, sealed off from land, air and sea, caged and starved, denied even medication for our sick. After the slow death policy came the bombardment. In this most densely populated of places, nothing has been spared Israel's warplanes, from government buildings to homes, mosques, hospitals, schools and markets. More than 540 have been killed and thousands permanently maimed. A third are women and children. Whole families have been massacred, some while they slept.

This river of blood is being shed under lies and false pretexts. For six months we in Hamas observed the ceasefire. Israel broke it repeatedly from the start. Israel was required to open crossings to Gaza, and extend the truce to the West Bank. It proceeded to tighten its deadly siege of Gaza, repeatedly cutting electricity and water supplies. The collective punishment did not halt, but accelerated - as did the assassinations and killings. Thirty Gazans were killed by Israeli fire and hundreds of patients died as a direct effect of the siege during the so-called ceasefire. Israel enjoyed a period of calm. Our people did not.

When this broken truce neared its end, we expressed our readiness for a new comprehensive truce in return for lifting the blockade and opening all Gaza border crossings, including Rafah. Our calls fell on deaf ears. Yet still we would be willing to begin a new truce on these terms following the complete withdrawal of the invading forces from Gaza.

No rockets have ever been fired from the West Bank. But 50 died and hundreds more were injured there last year at Israel's hands, while its expansionism proceeded relentlessly. We are meant to be content with shrinking scraps of territory, a handful of cantons at Israel's mercy, enclosed by it from all sides.The truth is Israel seeks a one-sided ceasefire, observed by my people alone, in return for siege, starvation, bombardment, assassinations, incursions and colonial settlement. What Israel wants is a gratuitous ceasefire.

The logic of those who demand that we stop our resistance is absurd. They absolve the aggressor and occupier - armed with the deadliest weapons of death and destruction - of responsibility, while blaming the victim, prisoner and occupied. Our modest, home-made rockets are our cry of protest to the world. Israel and its American and European sponsors want us to be killed in sile nce. But die in silence we will not.

What is being visited on Gaza today was visited on Yasser Arafat before. When he refused to bow to Israel's dictates, he was imprisoned in his Ramallah headquarters, surrounded by tanks for two years. When this failed to break his resolve, he was murdered by poisoning.

Gaza enters 2009 just as it did 2008: under Israeli fire. Between January and February of last year 140 Gazans died in air strikes. And just before it embarked on its failed military assault on Lebanon in July 2006, Israel rained thousands of shells on Gaza, killing 240. From Deir Yassin in 1948 to Gaza today, the list of Israel's crimes is long. The justifications change, but the reality is the same: colonial occupation, oppression, and never-ending injustice. If this is the "free world" whose "values" Israel is defending, as its foreign minister Tzipi Livni alleges, then we want nothing to do with it.

Israel's leaders remain in the grip of confusion, unable to set clear goals for the attacks - from ousting the legitimately elected Hamas government and destroying its infrastructure, to stopping the rockets. As they fail to break Gaza's resistance the benchmark has been lowered. Now they speak of weakening Hamas and limiting the resistance. But they will achieve neither. Gaza's people are more united than ever, determined not to be terrorised into submission. Our fighters, armed with the justice of their cause,=2 0have already caused many casualties among the occupation army and will fight on to defend their land and people. Nothing can defeat our will to be free.

Once again, Washington and Europe have opted to aid and abet the jailer, occupier and aggressor, and to condemn its victims. We hoped Barack Obama would break with George Bush's disastrous legacy but his start is not encouraging. While he swiftly moved to denounce the Mumbai attacks, he remains tongue-tied after 10 days of slaughter in Gaza. But my people are not alone. Millions of freedom-loving men and women stand by its struggle for justice and liberation - witness daily protests against Israeli aggression, not only in the Arab and Islamic region, but worldwide.

Israel will no doubt wreak untold destruction, death and suffering in Gaza. But it will meet the same fate in Gaza as it did in Lebanon. We will not be broken by siege and bombardment, and will never surrender to occupation.

• Khalid Mish'al is the head of the Hamas political bureau


(The death toll was around 741 Palestinians last I checked)
Well thank you Raptor for stepping in to clarify Oshun's position ...I do respect your perspective and I believe that this is one of the few areas (based on past discussions) in which we have fundamental disagreement. So I feel that it is only right to address what you have said thoroughly and also clarify my position even further in the process as follows....

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
LieDecrypter

I think, the point that Oshun Auset is making, and she may correct me if I'm wrong, is that we don’t have to qualify the afrikan –anything, by attaching an allegorical noah-theme myth to it.


Here is where my first clarification must be made for the record my position is not to try to "qualify" African/Black civilization by attaching what you consider to be a 'myth' to it. In point of fact what I am doing is CONFIRMING the fact that the TRUE origins of the Hebrew people, faith and culture has it's ROOTS in Africa. Furthermore, your assertion that Noah was only a 'myth' doesn't really hold water (not a flood pun) when a detailed verifiable genealogy is given with regard to his offspring. Are you suggesting that ancient Blacks did not keep historic records? and therefore any such records in existence would have to be european in origin?

Now just because the original texts written by the Black Hebrews were later simply TRANSLATED into other peoples languages such as the Greek Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea scrolls, Targum, Peshitta, Latin and the King James version now in heavy rotation today. This does not I repeat NOT negate it's utility as a historic document chronicling the ancient history of our people in northern Africa.

Granted there were indeed many things lost in translation to be sure... however, there is enough of this historic record left intact for it to be accepted.... especially when there is a plethora of corroborating and circumstantial evidence to back it up. So there is no need to throw the Black baby out with the dirty bath water YT has tried to baptize it with. Besides even IF the Noah theme was a myth that would still place it in good company among the MANY mythological stories and characters running rampant throughout Egyptian/Kemetic cultural traditions...yet I don't see us ascribing titles such as "allegorical myth" to these and using this as a basis to deny it as being a part of Black civilization.


quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
All the shem ham japeth stuff were used as a means to distinguish different skin colors or race of the peoples in that region regarding the epoch in question. That the afrikan needed no haribu mythological and or secular classification to establish their own afrikan identity.


All the "Shem, Ham and Japheth stuff" was not used as a means to "distinguish color" by the BLACK HEBREWS who first began to keep historic records...why would they need to do this when they were all BLACK? I believe you are confusing the COLONIAL distortions of the Hebrew record with it's actual purpose. Many scholars believe that it was the Japhetic lineage that first ventured out of Africa into europe and asia which first set in motion these "different skin colors". Whereas the Hamitic and Semitic lines remained in Africa and migrated north and south respectively and remained Black.

Moreover, your statement that...
"The afrikan needed no haribu mythological and or secular classification to establish their own afrikan identity.

Misses the point in that you are crediting the "mythological" and or "secular" classification that the Africans gave THEMSELVES to another people.... this WAS their own identity and that's why they wrote it for themselves.

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
Dr. Ben tells us:

“HAMITE and SEMITE are names adopted from Hebrew mythology (written and developed in Hellenic Greece) as written in the Torah and Christian Bible.


If by Dr. Ben you are referring to Dr. Yosef ben-Jochannan then we are talking only about semantics and not about what is semitic. Since he belives that the ancient Hebrews were Black which is precisely the point I'm making. Now I disagree that the Hellenic Greeks "developed" the names Ham and Shem. Again translation does NOT mean origination all the Greeks did was change the name Shem to Sem which is where we get the word Semite as I said before...

Here is a link to back it up....


"The word "Semitic" is an adjective derived from Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in the Bible (Genesis 5.32, 6.10, 10.21), or more precisely from the Greek derivative of that name, namely Σημ (Sēm); the noun form referring to a person is Semite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semite

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
These words have no authoritative relationship to Africa, her indigenous peoples, cultures or things African. They are racist in origin and bigoted in practice…


These words were not and are not racist they are merely derivitive words from the same words that Africans used to describe themselves. Just because later colonialists used our cultures against us (like they've never done that before) is no reason to reject it by calling it "racist"... that's absurd.

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
For nowhere in recorded history written by Africans or other ancient peoples of the era in question, is there any mention of HAMITES and SEMITES, before their appearance in their Jewish or Christian advocates’.”


Are you sure about that? because the Biblical recorded history does include the names of those Black men who started what would LATER be called the HAMITIC and SEMITIC lineage. That is unless of course you believe that the ancient Hebrews were white and not of African origin (which I'm starting to think you do)

Besides, I wouldn't expect the actual words HAMITE or SEMITE to appear in the ORIGINAL Biblical texts or subsequent African writtings any more than I would expect to see the word NATIVE AMERICAN show up in ancient Lakota Sioux writtings to describe themselves...but does that mean they are not the same people?
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

thanks And why would we use such late coming Semetic terminology(which came about after the Asiatic invasions, no coincidence) when the first African people's were not Semetic, nor are the current majority, including our direct ancestors from West and Central Africa. The only reason we as a people focus on such late on the scene myths and terms from that particular region... when there is an entire continent at our cultural/mythological disposal... is because that is where our oppressors focus. We need to be on our own agenda, not theirs.


Similar to when I pointed out to you Oshun that you were viewing this the wrong way....

http://africanamerica.org/eve/...844605126/m/34210943

I believe you are making something here a lot more complicated than it needs to be. You are making a distinction between the "Semites" and other African people that is unnecessary... since they are the SAME people.

Unless you believe that Semites can only be non African people which would contradict what you said earlier with respect to the existence of 'Ethiopian Jews'. Ironically, your basis for dismissing these cultural links is because you feel they are "mythological"...I would expect for you to personally place myths in a higher regard than that... considering the fact you chose to base your screen name 'Oshun' on the Yoruba MYTHOLOGICAL "goddess of love, diplomacy, wealth etc". Along with 'Auset' the Egyptian "goddess of female spiritual energy".

Now I'm not knocking you for this I say more power to you....I just feel however a myth is a myth is a myth...Although your position may be that only if a myth is demonstrably seen as 'Afrikan' is it acceptible.

The downside when we do things like this is that we are limiting and denying the reach that our civilizations actually had...it's no different than when all those european "Egyptologists" tried to deny that Egypt is an African country even though it's IN Africa. Or when the noses where taken off the Sphinx ....only this time it's Blacks chopping off their Hebrew heritage to spite their face.
Firstly, I must apologize to all other readers/posters for sidetracking the thread...


quote:
Originally posted by LieDecrypter:
I believe you are making something here a lot more complicated than it needs to be. You are making a distinction between the "Semites" and other African people that is unnecessary... since they are the SAME people.


They make this distinction themselves, and so do the Africans they distinguish themselves from. It's hard for us to see this when we are outside the African fishbowl, but honestly, the Ethiopian/Somali ect. people don't have much of a better attitude towards their fellow Africans than the Northern Sudanese and Janjaweed you mentioned... The Northern Sudanese are just the most recent epoch of Asiatic admixture and subsequent patriarchal cultural proclivity, but it's been happenning for millenia. The Ethiopian and Somali people CLEARLY identify with their patrilineal culture/worldview.

quote:
Unless you believe that Semites can only be non African people which would contradict what you said earlier with respect to the existence of 'Ethiopian Jews'.


The 'Semetic' Beta Israel, like other Semetic and more recently Arabized Africans are the product of intermixing with Asiatic foreigners... It is OBVIOUS in their appearance, and in their attitudes towards other Africans...

The 'Semetic' African and their myths/culture(Kemetic Root, patriarchal twist from their raping daddies), comes on the scene post Asiatic invasion. Of course they are still phenotypically African(in todays worldview), but the patriarchal monotheistic religion that was birthed by the Habiru, isn't the same type of panentheistic, nature based 'spiritual system' you see in the rest of Africa.

quote:
Ironically, your basis for dismissing these cultural links is because you feel they are "mythological"...


No, that is not what I said. I despise the constant FOCUS on these particular cultural 'myths'. And IMO, literalizing ANY allegory destroys the information present in them. Applying a particularly small group of people's myths/culture, from a post Asiatic epoch, onto everyone else is a form of cultural/religious(or in this case, since it's being literalized) historical imperialism.

quote:
I would expect for you to personally place myths in a higher regard than that...considering the fact you chose to base your screen name 'Oshun' on the Yoruba MYTHOLOGICAL "goddess of love,diplomacy, wealth etc". Along with 'Auset' the "goddess of female spiritual energy".


Literalizing myth destroys them, figuring out what they are an allegotry for IS putting them in a high reguard. If I sat here and tried to apply and present the MYTHS surrounding the Orisha(powers of nature) of Osun, and the Neteru(power of nature)AST to history and historic events, it would be innacurate as all get out, and a perversion of the spiritual system of the Yoruba and Kamau. Not to mention, missing the ENTIRE point of said myths/spiritual systems. Anthropomorphism makes this easy to remember. Do you honestly think and try to present Oshun and Auset as actual 'people' with the stories surrounding them as 'literal history'? What about the primordeal powers(which means they existed before the universe/earth/humans) that have been anthropomorphized? How can you do that? Even the myths surrounding the Orisa Sango/Shango, who is an actual deified Alafin/King of Oyo, aren't taught or supposed to be taken as 'literal'. They serve a much higher and deeper esoteric and metaphysical purpose.

Using the term 'myth' to describe something isn't a put down.. I LOVE myths... Literalizing them into actual history and applying it to people's/cultures and environments that it was not birthed from is my issue. Particularly when they are the byproduct of those who want to dominate.

quote:
Now I'm not knocking you for this I say more power to you....[b]I just feel however a myth is a myth is a myth...


I agree, and why is it that only a certain people's myth is historically literalized? You honestly don't find this much outside of the big three Semetic/Abrahamic crowd(and those in the mystic traditions don't literalize).

quote:
Although your position may be that only if a myth is demonstrably seen as 'Afrikan' is it acceptible.


Nope, if the worldview it promotes is patriarchal and imbalanced, as well as literalized(which usually all go together), I take issue with any myth.

quote:
The downside when we do things like this is that we are limiting and denying the reach that our civilizations actually had...it's no different than when all those european "Egyptologists" tried to deny that Egypt is an African country even though it's IN Africa. Or when the noses where taken off the Sphinx ....only this time it's Blacks chopping off their Hebrew heritage to spite their face.


No, it's Africans focussing on the post Asiatic(why would we do that?) Semetic culture and mythos, literalizing it, while simultaneously projecting it onto the rest of the continent(and world), in favour of ANY OTHER African mythos/culture that irks me.

The Abrahamic myths came to fruition AFTER the Asiatic invasions into the area, no? You don't think that has something to do with their leaning? I'm not saying they 'originate' with the Hyksos, but rather they are a mythological hybrid created by the 'offspring' of the Hyksos and the Kamau. Hence they are "Black", and have a strong African 'root', but are simultaneously different in their patriarchy and exclusivist monotheism in comparison with their panentheistic and balanced mother...
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
They make this distinction themselves, and so do the Africans they distinguish themselves from. It's hard for us to see this when we are outside the African fishbowl, but honestly, the Ethiopian/Somali ect. people don't have much of a better attitude towards their fellow Africans than the Northern Sudanese and Janjaweed you mentioned... The Northern Sudanese are just the most recent epoch of Asiatic admixture and subsequent patriarchal cultural proclivity, but it's been happenning for millenia. The Ethiopian and Somali people CLEARLY identify with their patrilineal culture/worldview.


You are confusing the 'Ethiopian Hebrews' with the Arabic admixed Ethiopians and Sudanese who's hatred for Africans we are all familar with. Moreover, you seem to be describing patriarchal cultural proclivity as something intrinsically bad what's up with that?...when it's not. The reason things are the way they are in eastern Africa is because the Arabic invaders and enslavers (Solely Men) allowed the children they produced with African women to be free. So of course they are going side with them over their mothers people....similar to how many mulatto AA's chose to identify with the dominate white culture here.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
The 'Semetic' Beta Israel, like other Semetic and more recently Arabized Africans are the product of intermixing with Asiatic foreigners... It is OBVIOUS in their appearance, and in their attitudes towards other Africans...


This is incorrect how can the 'Semetic Beta Israel' be a product of intermixing with Asiatic foreigners when both Arabs and Asians mutated from the Prototypical Black of which the FIRST Semite (Shem) who was one. If you don't believe the proof that I provided that shows that 'Semite' is derived from Shem...because you deem it to be 'mythology' then where praytell do you reckon semites hail from?

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
The 'Semetic' African and their myths/culture(Kemetic Root, patriarchal twist from their raping daddies), comes on the scene post Asiatic invasion. Of course they are still phenotypically African(in todays worldview), but the patriarchal monotheistic religion that was birthed by the Habiru, isn't the same type of panentheistic, nature based 'spiritual system' you see in the rest of Africa.


Are you sure about this? because the last time I checked king Akhenaten introduced a patriarchal monotheistic religion to Africa long before any "Asiatic invasion". You have to realize that in Africa's long history spanning THOUSANDS of years MANY social, religious, and political belief systems arose and fell.

Not just the "panentheistic and matrilocal" systems that you seem to be quite enamored with. Today we only know a very small fraction of this rich history due to the countless lies, distortions and misrepresentions handed down about Africa.



quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
No, that is not what I said. I despise the constant FOCUS on these particular cultural 'myths'. And IMO, literalizing ANY allegory destroys the information present in them. Applying a particularly small group of people's myths/culture, from a post Asiatic epoch, onto everyone else is a form of cultural/religious(or in this case, since it's being literalized) historical imperialism.


I despise the fact that these 'cultural myth's' as you call them are associated with the WRONG group of people. There is no way that Africans never migrated north into the land known today as Israel ...which is only a hop skip and a jump from Egypt. I don't think that literalizing what you consider to be purely 'allegory' automatically negates it's utility as a historic reference. There are many African oral traditions that are laced with mythology that also contain accurate information....but once again do we throw the baby out with the bath water?

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Literalizing myth destroys them, figuring out what they are an allegotry for IS putting them in a high reguard. If I sat here and tried to apply and present the MYTHS surrounding the Orisha(powers of nature) of Osun, and the Neteru(power of nature)AST to history and historic events, it would be innacurate as all get out, and a perversion of the spiritual system of the Yoruba and Kamau. Not to mention, missing the ENTIRE point of said myths/spiritual systems. Anthropomorphism makes this easy to remember. Do you honestly think and try to present Oshun and Auset as actual 'people' with the stories surrounding them as 'literal history'? What about the primordeal powers(which means they existed before the universe/earth/humans) that have been anthropomorphized? How can you do that? Even the myths surrounding the Orisa Sango/Shango, who is an actual deified Alafin/King of Oyo, aren't taught or supposed to be taken as 'literal'. They serve a much higher and deeper esoteric and metaphysical purpose.


I'm not sure what point you are making here but..if you feel that 'literalizing myths' destroys them why above were you bemoaning the fact that the 'myths' which you feel are not African are being literalized? It seems to me that if you truly believe this 'destroys' the myth you should be glad of this. That you are not shows me that the opposite is true and that LIFE is given to these belief systems when this is done and it has the power to move people....it's called faith.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Using the term 'myth' to describe something isn't a put down.. I LOVE myths... Literalizing them into actual history and applying it to people's/cultures and environments that it was not birthed from is my issue. Particularly when they are the byproduct of those who want to dominate.


Once again you are treating what is in point of fact African culture like a bald headed step child. Because the oppresor has hi jacked it... instead of laying claim to it in the same way you've done Egyptian culture....even though that has been hi jacked also.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
I agree, and why is it that only a certain people's myth is historically literalized? You honestly don't find this much outside of the big three Semetic/Abrahamic crowd(and those in the mystic traditions don't literalize).


Would you like to see more of Egypts myth's literalized?...honestly, I think many already are.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Nope, if the worldview it promotes is patriarchal and imbalanced, as well as literalized(which usually all go together), I take issue with it/them.


Again why are you treating a patriarchal world view as if it's something intrinsically bad? a matriarical society renders no magical outcome in which a patriarchal cannot.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
No, it's Africans focussing on the post Asiatic(why would we do that?) Semetic culture and mythos, literalizing it, while simultaneously projecting it onto the rest of the continent(and world), in favour of ANY OTHER African mythos/culture that irks me.


Again how can semitic culture be an Asian import to Africa when the first Semite was BLACK and lived in Africa?

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
The Abrahamic myths came to fruition AFTER the Asiatic invasions into the area, no? You don't think that has something to do with their leaning? I'm not saying they 'originate' with the Hyksos, but rather they are a mythological hybrid created by the 'offspring' of the Hyksos and the Kamau. Hence they are "Black", and have a strong African 'root', but are simultaneously different in their patriarchy and exclusivist monotheism in comparison with their panentheistic and balanced mother...


"The Abrahamic myths came to fruition AFTER the Asiatic invasions into the area, no?"...

Hail No...Abraham was a Black man and a Descendent of Shem *see the genealogy I laid out earlier* so how can these Hebrew traditions be the result of an "invasion" of people who were not even on the scene yet? Again, if you are just going to cast off the Biblical record of the genealogy of Shem/Semitic people...then do tell me from where do they ORIGINALLY come from....cite a source that is as ancient and detailed as the Biblical account that also has as much corroborating and circumstanstial evidence. I then would consider it ...anything less I can only deem as conjecture which gives me no reason to disregard the Biblical account.

By the way since we have hi jacked this topic (like these false Jews have done our Hebrew culture) I'm going to leave you with a couple reference books that will help break this down further for you. You should first read "The Hebrew Heritage of Black Africa" by Moses Farrar & Steven Jacobs then read "The Truth About Black Biblical Hebrew Israelites" by Ella J. Hughley.

This will help you broaden your perspective a little more about this. I know you mean well which is why I feel compelled to share this information plus I know that there are those reading this thread that are highly interested in this subject. Although, like I said this may not be the thread to do it so either I will touch on this in my other thread or I may create a new one on this topic. You are welcome to continue this discussion with me at that point although I would prefer if you read the books first if you don't mind.

Anyway, I feel we should let this thread get back to talking about those imposters fighting over the land as we speak...even though nary one of dem sum b*tches belong over there....
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Kocolicious:
Originially posted by Romulus
quote:
Okay. This is beginning to go nowhere because you want to start arguing over semantics.

Even though the history of "The Black Jews" is compeling as well as relevant there are no descendants of black jews (as far as I know) currently in Israel fighting the Hamas over the control of Israel or Gaza or whatever the hell it is they're fighting over. As far as Palestine, the Palestinians and arabic peoples in question we also already know their tainted past in dealing with Africans. In fact, that issue was discussed a long, long time ago here on this discussion board.

The conversation of neither the Israelis nor Palestinians not deserving the land their currently on is a good topic too but one that could be better discussed in another thread. The point is we're dealing with what's going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians now and the series of events that have occured in history that has led up to the conflict they're currently in.


fro Young brotha...young brotha...the Ethiopians Israel rescued ARE BLACK JEWS.... I don't know however if they are in fact in the Israeli army fighting the cause... I can't answer that question with clarity..... however, you refused to see the correlation with what was DONE to the Indians and how you say what was DONE to the original land owners of Israel/Palestine. It hasn't even been 500 years over here....and yet 500 years over there gives them the RIGHT to have a land that has occupied by another culture for that long.... can't you see how ridiculous that is for another culture [just like the Indians] to come in and CLAIM ownership of property they have NOT been LIVING on for years? Can't you see that?

Even though you can see how the Indians could not pull that off...how come the Israelis can? Plus they are conducting themselves just like massa in that they are being racist toward the darker skin Jews i.e. the Ethiopian who they WENT and got and brought "back" to Israel.[Which I still don't understand why they bothered since they treat them like "subhumans" like massa treated us....but anyway] So. Haven't you heard the quote: Those who FORGET their past....are deemed to repeat it? Well...this is the case RIGHT here. Yes we're talking about Israel/Palestine NOW...but! It is very important to KNOW and understand HOW they got to this point....and the only way to do that is to look back in the past..where it all started. I'm just saying folks may call it semantics, I call it just plain HISTORY.....fro


See, now you're just trying to insult my intelligence. I never said I didn't know anything about the "black jews", I just said that I felt it could be better discussed in another thread.

We could argue about the Egyptians' African past too, especially since I brought up just a little earlier in this thread that the Egyptians are the ones that are supplying the Hamas with weapons and supplies through tunnels.

The whole point is this: It's not the case that I'm unaware of these peoples' African heritage--who they stole from, how and where they migrated, and how and why they covered up their African heritage etc. At the time I was more concerned with the integrity of the thread--the immediate conflict currently going on between the present peoples that are occupying that land. But seeing as you, oshun, and liediecryptor want to shift to the afrocentric component, then fine by me. No skin off my back.
quote:
For 18 months my people in Gaza have been under siege, incarcerated inside the world's biggest prison, sealed off from land, air and sea, caged and starved, denied even medication for our sick.


But when the UN approached them with a peace proposal they wanted to play dumb and act like no one ever even approached them with the proposal. A bunch of bullshit. Even now the Israeli army ceased firing long enough for supplies to be transported through. But who gives a damn about that. They'er still sending rocketfire.

Before anyone chimes in and acts like I'm being biased, that shit was also wrong what the Israeli army did. That was straight bullshit--firing upon the red cross of all people and a UN vehicle. I don't care what their intelligence was in that operation. Whether they felt the red cross and UN vehicles may have been trojan horses of sorts or not they shouldn't have fired upon them.

If they had indeed turned out to be Hamas terrorists after the fact, then cool but to arbitrarily fire upon them is some straight garbage. But when both sides keep doing underhanded shit like that you can't really choose one side and say who is right and who is wrong.
Originally posted by Romulus
quote:
Posted January 11, 2009 08:00 AM
Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kocolicious:
Originially posted by Romulus
quote:
Okay. This is beginning to go nowhere because you want to start arguing over semantics.

Even though the history of "The Black Jews" is compeling as well as relevant there are no descendants of black jews (as far as I know) currently in Israel fighting the Hamas over the control of Israel or Gaza or whatever the hell it is they're fighting over. As far as Palestine, the Palestinians and arabic peoples in question we also already know their tainted past in dealing with Africans. In fact, that issue was discussed a long, long time ago here on this discussion board.

The conversation of neither the Israelis nor Palestinians not deserving the land their currently on is a good topic too but one that could be better discussed in another thread. The point is we're dealing with what's going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians now and the series of events that have occured in history that has led up to the conflict they're currently in.


fro Young brotha...young brotha...the Ethiopians Israel rescued ARE BLACK JEWS.... I don't know however if they are in fact in the Israeli army fighting the cause... I can't answer that question with clarity..... however, you refused to see the correlation with what was DONE to the Indians and how you say what was DONE to the original land owners of Israel/Palestine. It hasn't even been 500 years over here....and yet 500 years over there gives them the RIGHT to have a land that has occupied by another culture for that long.... can't you see how ridiculous that is for another culture [just like the Indians] to come in and CLAIM ownership of property they have NOT been LIVING on for years? Can't you see that?

Even though you can see how the Indians could not pull that off...how come the Israelis can? Plus they are conducting themselves just like massa in that they are being racist toward the darker skin Jews i.e. the Ethiopian who they WENT and got and brought "back" to Israel.[Which I still don't understand why they bothered since they treat them like "subhumans" like massa treated us....but anyway] So. Haven't you heard the quote: Those who FORGET their past....are deemed to repeat it? Well...this is the case RIGHT here. Yes we're talking about Israel/Palestine NOW...but! It is very important to KNOW and understand HOW they got to this point....and the only way to do that is to look back in the past..where it all started. I'm just saying folks may call it semantics, I call it just plain HISTORY.....fro


See, now you're just trying to insult my intelligence. I never said I didn't know anything about the "black jews", I just said that I felt it could be better discussed in another thread.

We could argue about the Egyptians' African past too, especially since I brought up just a little earlier in this thread that the Egyptians are the ones that are supplying the Hamas with weapons and supplies through tunnels.

The whole point is this: It's not the case that I'm unaware of these peoples' African heritage--who they stole from, how and where they migrated, and how and why they covered up their African heritage etc. At the time I was more concerned with the integrity of the thread--the immediate conflict currently going on between the present peoples that are occupying that land. But seeing as you, oshun, and liediecryptor want to shift to the afrocentric component, then fine by me. No skin off my back.



fro Young brotha...I'm not trying to insult ANYTHING...let alone insult your intelligence. I didn't say you SAID anything of the sort. Please let's stick to the discussion....which can go several ways....NOT just the way YOU want it to. BTW: The "present" Egyptians ARE semites i.e. Arabs[just like jews/palentinians are semites]......again Egyptians are not Africans! They stole that title hundreds of years ago from the original African Egyptians. Remember? So it's very easy to SEE why they [Egyptians] would go that way. And it has EVERYTHING to do with what happened in the PAST i.e. HISTORY. But you don't want to go there....thinking...it has nothing to do with the current conditions between those two fighting and it DOES. It completely DOES!

And the integrity of thread? Again. That's your perspective. And just cuz you feel that way doesn't mean that's the way it is. If we are to maintain a discussion regarding this topic, you my friend has to be OPEN to all views...and NOT be so narrow in your individual teachings as to dismiss what others have brought to this discussion. All folks in ANY particular forum are not gonna always AGREE. It's impossible! But at least be open enough to what is being said....cuz maybe...just maybe you might learn something....but! Of course JMHO...is all. fro
quote:
Originally posted by LieDecrypter:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
They make this distinction themselves, and so do the Africans they distinguish themselves from. It's hard for us to see this when we are outside the African fishbowl, but honestly, the Ethiopian/Somali ect. people don't have much of a better attitude towards their fellow Africans than the Northern Sudanese and Janjaweed you mentioned... The Northern Sudanese are just the most recent epoch of Asiatic admixture and subsequent patriarchal cultural proclivity, but it's been happenning for millenia. The Ethiopian and Somali people CLEARLY identify with their patrilineal culture/worldview.


You are confusing the 'Ethiopian Hebrews' with the Arabic admixed Ethiopians and Sudanese who's hatred for Africans we are all familar with.


No I'm not. The Beta Israel are of the same admixed phenotype as their Arab and Orthodox X-ian brethren... They do not look like the Oromo, the indigenous Nilots that are the makority in Ethiopia, and that scientists have proven are the people the Asiatics mixed with creating the other populations of Ethiopia.

[IMG]C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\WDYNCLAJ[/IMG]

quote:
Moreover, you seem to be describing patriarchal cultural proclivity as something intrinsically bad what's up with that?...


Cuz it is... particuarly when it comes to religious doctrine. Any spiritual system/religion that demonizes, demotes, or removes the devine/sacred feminine is imbalanced. I'll have to direct you to other threads where this has been discussed because it deserves a seperate convo...

quote:
when it's not. The reason things are the way they are in eastern Africa is because the Arabic invaders and enslavers (Solely Men) allowed the children they produced with African women to be free. So of course they are going side with them over their mothers people....similar to how many mulatto AA's chose to identify with the dominate white culture here.


That's part of it, but their were many invasions prior to the Arabs. That's historic fact.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
The 'Semetic' Beta Israel, like other Semetic and more recently Arabized Africans are the product of intermixing with Asiatic foreigners... It is OBVIOUS in their appearance, and in their attitudes towards other Africans...


This is incorrect how can the 'Semetic Beta Israel' be a product of intermixing with Asiatic foreigners when both Arabs and Asians mutated from the Prototypical Black of which the FIRST Semite (Shem) who was one.[/quote]

You are literalizing Biblical myth, so you can see where we would not agree on this. This is simply not accurate. The Beta Israel admit to their admixture with no problem... Inf act, they and most Ethiopians 'brag' about it, and use it as a differentiating marker from other Bantu and Nilotic Africans. Dr. Ben has spoken to this, and I have witnessed it firts hand. The Beta Israel ware called Falasha because of their religion, not phenotype/ethnicity.

quote:
[b]If you don't believe the proof that I provided that shows that 'Semite' is derived from Shem...because you deem it to be 'mythology' then where praytell do you reckon semites hail from?


Earlier invasions from Asia... You seem to only be referencing the Arab invasion, as if the Hyksos and Persians were never invaders at a much earlier epoch... I believe I already explained this in my last post below...

[quote
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
The 'Semetic' African and their myths/culture(Kemetic Root, patriarchal twist from their raping daddies), comes on the scene post Asiatic invasion. Of course they are still phenotypically African(in todays worldview), but the patriarchal monotheistic religion that was birthed by the Habiru, isn't the same type of panentheistic, nature based 'spiritual system' you see in the rest of Africa.


Are you sure about this?[/quote]

Yes.

quote:
because the last time I checked king Akhenaten introduced a patriarchal monotheistic religion to Africa long before any "Asiatic invasion".


Uhhmmm, the Hyksos? Expelled by Amose 100 yeears after Akenaten's rule(fact), 'Exodus' by Moses... 100 years after Ankenaten's rule. The mythical 'twist' making the Hyksos invaders the Hebrew victims.... hhhmmmm...


quote:
You have to realize that in Africa's long history spanning THOUSANDS of years MANY social, religious, and political belief systems arose and fell.


Yes, and many were millenia prior to when the Semetic myths came on the scene... Your point?

[quoite][b]Not just the "panentheistic and matrilocal" systems that you seem to be quite enamored with. Today we only know a very small fraction of this rich history due to the countless lies, distortions and misrepresentions handed down about Africa.
[/quote]

I'm 'enamored' with BALANCE... What's matrilocal BTW? I know cultures(not religions) can be matrifocal... but I haven't really discussed that here.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
No, that is not what I said. I despise the constant FOCUS on these particular cultural 'myths'. And IMO, literalizing ANY allegory destroys the information present in them. Applying a particularly small group of people's myths/culture, from a post Asiatic epoch, onto everyone else is a form of cultural/religious(or in this case, since it's being literalized) historical imperialism.


I despise the fact that these 'cultural myth's' as you call them are associated with the WRONG group of people. There is no way that Africans never migrated north into the land known today as Israel]...which is only a hop skip and a jump from Egypt.
quote:


Have I ever disputed that Africans migrated?

[quote]I don't think that literalizing what you consider to be purely 'allegory' automatically negates it's utility as a historic reference.[b]


Making allegory literal history is illogical, and does violence to the intent and purpose of myth. Reguardless of the culture.

quote:
[b]There are many African oral traditions that are laced with mythology that also contain accurate information....but once again do we throw the baby out with the bath water?


Literalizing myth to prove history is illogical when it comes to spiritual systems and frankly, unecessary.

quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Literalizing myth destroys them, figuring out what they are an allegotry for IS putting them in a high reguard. If I sat here and tried to apply and present the MYTHS surrounding the Orisha(powers of nature) of Osun, and the Neteru(power of nature)AST to history and historic events, it would be innacurate as all get out, and a perversion of the spiritual system of the Yoruba and Kamau. Not to mention, missing the ENTIRE point of said myths/spiritual systems. Anthropomorphism makes this easy to remember. Do you honestly think and try to present Oshun and Auset as actual 'people' with the stories surrounding them as 'literal history'? What about the primordeal powers(which means they existed before the universe/earth/humans) that have been anthropomorphized? How can you do that? Even the myths surrounding the Orisa Sango/Shango, who is an actual deified Alafin/King of Oyo, aren't taught or supposed to be taken as 'literal'. They serve a much higher and deeper esoteric and metaphysical purpose.


I'm not sure what point you are making here but..if you feel that 'literalizing myths' destroys them why above were you bemoaning the fact that the 'myths' which you feel are not African are being literalized? It seems to me that if you truly believe this 'destroys' the myth you should be glad of this. That you are not shows me that the opposite is true and that LIFE is given to these belief systems when this is done and it has the power to move people....it's called faith.


Literalizing ANYONE'S myth destroys not just the function/purpose of the myth, it makes people literalists idiots and dumbs down the population, creating religious fenaticism, and people who can't think symbolically. Instead of learning the lesson a myth is treaching, be it essoteric, or astrotheological symbolism ect. They go on 'faith' that bush's burned, mwn can live in the stomache of whales, godesses turn into birds, and babies don't 'have to' come from a an egg and sperm...

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Using the term 'myth' to describe something isn't a put down.. I LOVE myths... Literalizing them into actual history and applying it to people's/cultures and environments that it was not birthed from is my issue. Particularly when they are the byproduct of those who want to dominate.


Once again you are treating what is in point of fact African culture like a bald headed step child. Because the oppresor has hi jacked it... instead of laying claim to it in the same way you've done Egyptian culture....even though that has been hi jacked also.


It's a step child alright... KeMeTic culture was not the direct product of Asiatics mixing with Africans...

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
I agree, and why is it that only a certain people's myth is historically literalized? You honestly don't find this much outside of the big three Semetic/Abrahamic crowd(and those in the mystic traditions don't literalize).


Would you like to see more of Egypts myth's literalized?...honestly, I think many already are.


I'm not sure why you asked this question. No, I would like to see NO cultures myths literalized... Cuz their function is not to be 'history'... They serve many other wonderful purposes. Please point out a spiritual myth of the Kamau that is taught as literal history in the KeMeTic spiritual teachings... All the practitioners I know despise literalism and historization. Plus KMT kept great historical records seperate from mythos.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Nope, if the worldview it promotes is patriarchal and imbalanced, as well as literalized(which usually all go together), I take issue with it/them.


Again why are you treating a patriarchal world view as if it's something intrinsically bad? a matriarical society renders no magical outcome in which a patriarchal cannot.


I'll put it this way....

"And if one does not INVOCATE from their sacred lips an acknowledgment of the feminine divine how can you say concretely that there is balance?"

Patriarchal god concepts demonize, demote, and/or remove the devine feminine... That is a reflection of patriarchal culture because as Dr. Ben says, "Religion is the deification of culture." You don't see the AMSSIVE difference in cultures who have goddesses and those that onle have 1 exclusively male god? Venerating Expansion(male energy) with no contraction to counter balance it(female energy)... the perfect cultural recipe for empire.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
No, it's Africans focussing on the post Asiatic(why would we do that?) Semetic culture and mythos, literalizing it, while simultaneously projecting it onto the rest of the continent(and world), in favour of ANY OTHER African mythos/culture that irks me.


Again how can semitic culture be an Asian import to Africa when the first Semite was BLACK and lived in Africa?


Because the Semite is the offspring of the Asian male and the African women. They 1st Hebrew were the Asiatic Hyksos invaders who later were expelled from KeMiT after they had intermixed with the Africans for awhile, borrowing some of their myths to create their 'new' religion, but keeping the invaders cultural proclivity.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
The Abrahamic myths came to fruition AFTER the Asiatic invasions into the area, no? You don't think that has something to do with their leaning? I'm not saying they 'originate' with the Hyksos, but rather they are a mythological hybrid created by the 'offspring' of the Hyksos and the Kamau. Hence they are "Black", and have a strong African 'root', but are simultaneously different in their patriarchy and exclusivist monotheism in comparison with their panentheistic and balanced mother...


"The Abrahamic myths came to fruition AFTER the Asiatic invasions into the area, no?"...

Hail No...Abraham was a Black man and a Descendent of Shem *see the genealogy I laid out earlier* so how can these Hebrew traditions be the result of an "invasion" of people who were not even on the scene yet? Again, if you are just going to cast off the Biblical record of the genealogy of Shem/Semitic people...then do tell me from where do they ORIGINALLY come from....cite a source that is as ancient and detailed as the Biblical account that also has as much corroborating and circumstanstial evidence. I then would consider it ...anything less I can only deem as conjecture which gives me no reason to disregard the Biblical account.


Already did. I guess you don't agree with Dr. Ben and other Afro-centric scholars that Biblical scribes INVENTED Hebrew history. I don't overstand why you think it is accurate or logical to base any historical fact on Biblical(read mythical) psuedo lineages.

Have you read this book?

101 Myths of the Bible:How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History

quote:
By the way since we have hi jacked this topic (like these false Jews have done our Hebrew culture) I'm going to leave you with a couple reference books that will help break this down further for you. You should first read "The Hebrew Heritage of Black Africa" by Moses Farrar & Steven Jacobs then read "The Truth About Black Biblical Hebrew Israelites" by Ella J. Hughley.


Been there done that. Literalists they are.

quote:
This will help you broaden your perspective a little more about this. I know you mean well which is why I feel compelled to share this information plus I know that there are those reading this thread that are highly interested in this subject. Although, like I said this may not be the thread to do it so either I will touch on this in my other thread or I may create a new one on this topic. You are welcome to continue this discussion with me at that point although I would prefer if you read the books first if you don't mind.


I'd have to review them... but I won't cuz it's literalism. I won't deal with literalism period. I suggest you read the book I provided. I will make a list of others.

quote:
Anyway, I feel we should let this thread get back to talking about those imposters fighting over the land as we speak...even though nary one of dem sum b*tches belong over there....


Agreed...
A Debate with Benny Morris, Saree Makdisi and Norman Finkelstein

Benny Morris, Israeli historian of 1948. His latest book is 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War.

Saree Makdisi, Professor of English and Comparative Literature at UCLA and the author of Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation.

Norman Finkelstein, Author of several books, including The Holocaust Industry, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict and Beyond Chutzpah.

AMY GOODMAN: We continue today on the sixtieth anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel. Today, a debate around the legacy of 1948 and a possibility of a just future for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Benny Morris is seen as one of the most important Israeli historians of the 1948 war. From his first book twenty years ago, Morris has documented Israeli atrocities and the expulsion of Palestinians, considered part of a group of so-called “revisionist” historians who challenged conventional Israeli thinking about 1948. However, unlike his critics to the left, Morris did not consider the expulsions to be part of a systematic Israeli policy of transfer. His latest book, published in March by Yale University Press, is called 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. He joins us here in our firehouse studio.

We’re also joined in California by Saree Makdisi. He’s in Los Angeles, professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA. His latest book is Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation, just out this month. His most recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times is titled “Forget the Two-State Solution: Israelis and Palestinians Must Share the Land Equally.”
We are also joined on the telephone from Brussels by Norman Finkelstein, author of four books, including The Holocaust Industry, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict and Beyond Chutzpah. He was in Brussels addressing a group of parliamentarians around the issue of Palestinians.
And our guest remains on the line, Tikva Honig-Parnass, who fought in the 1948 war, now is a progressive writer in Israel and critical of what happened in 1948.
Benny Morris, welcome to Democracy Now! Explain, from your perspective, from your research, what happened in 1948.

BENNY MORRIS: Well, based on a large amount of documentation, which I’ve gone through over the years, several decades, in fact, the international community in the wake of the Holocaust voted to establish two states in Palestine, to divide the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jewish side, the Zionist movement, the Jewish Agency Executive accepted the international decision and went about establishing their state.
The Palestinian Arabs, backed by the Arab world, rejected the decision and went to war against the Jewish community in Palestine and subsequently against the state which was established half a year later. As a result of this war, some 700,000 Palestinians were displaced from their homes, not really turned into refugees, most of them, because they were moved or moved from one place in Palestine to another. About one-third moved out of Palestine and were genuine refugees.

AMY GOODMAN: And on what do you base all of this?

BENNY MORRIS: Oh, on masses and masses of Israeli, American, United Nations, British documentation. The Arab documentation isn’t available. The Arab states, all of them being dictatorships, do not open their archives. But all Western archives, especially the Israeli archives, give a very good picture of what actually happened.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the significance of your finding within the state of Israel—you’re basing much of this on Israeli documents—how you broke with convention in Israel?

BENNY MORRIS: Yeah. The traditional Zionist narrative about what had happened in ’48, especially relating to the refugee problem, was that the refugees had been ordered, instructed, advised by their leaders, by Palestinian leaders or Arab leaders outside the country, to flee, and that is why 700,000 left their homes. The documentation gives us a much, much broader and a more nuanced picture of what happened. Most of the people who were displaced fled their homes. A small number were expelled. Most fled their homes as a result of the war, the fear of battle, the fear of being attacked, the fear of dying. A small number also left because of the economic conditions. And a small number were advised or instructed by their leadership, as in Haifa in April 1948, to leave the country. But it’s a mixed bag, with the war itself, the hostilities themselves and fear of being hurt being the main precipitant to flight.

AMY GOODMAN: You have written that the humiliation of the Arabs going back to 1949 is what underlies so much of the hostility today. Lay out what you see as the humiliations.
BENNY MORRIS: It’s a historic humiliation. It’s not a private, personal humiliation. I think the Arab world was brought up—the Islamic Arab world was brought up on tales of power and conquest dating back to the seventh century and the expansion of Islam and the Arabs out of the Arabian Peninsula and the conquest of the Mediterranean Basin, parts of Europe, and so on. And they had a self-image of a powerful people.
And what happened in the—after the Turkish Ottoman conquests in the fifteenth century and subsequently belittled the Arab world, disempowered it. And then came the European imperial incursions, sometimes conquests in the nineteenth century. And topping all that came the Zionist influx and the unsuccessful Arab war against it in 1947-48. And this was a humiliation the Arab world could not take. 630,000 Jews had bested a 1.2 million Palestinians and 40 million Arabs surrounding that 630,000-strong community. And this humiliation is something which they have never been able to erase and still, I think, motivates them in large measure in their desire to erase the state of Israel.

AMY GOODMAN: How was it that for so many years the Zionist narrative was that there were either no Palestinians—it was an empty land—or the Palestinians left of their own accord?

BENNY MORRIS: These are different subjects, but I think the Zionists preferred not to see the 500,000-or-so natives who were there, as they regarded them at the end of the nineteenth century, because if they had sort of looked at them and they’d have seen the problem of what do you do with 500,000 people who don’t want you to arrive and settle in your—in what they regarded as their land, this would have knocked out the confidence from the Zionists and undermined their enterprise. It was better to see that the—to believe that the land was in some way empty. But if you look at the actual Zionist documentation, they did see the Arabs, and they knew there was a problem almost from the start.
When it comes to the Palestinian so-called—most of them so-called refugees or the displaced of ’48—look, political movements, peoples like to feel good about themselves and to feel that their cause is just. My belief is the cause, the Zionist cause, was just, and they had good reasons to believe—to see themselves as good. But every war has its dark side, especially civil wars, which are notably vicious. And ’48 also had a dark side, which involved the displacement of 700,000 people and the decision by the Israeli government—and this is the crucial decision—there was never a decision to expel, but there was a decision not to allow back the refugees. And this, in some ways, is a dark side to the ’48 war, which was a glorious war of the creation of the state of Israel; the defeat of larger armies, ultimately larger countries, by a small and weak community. But they preferred not to look at the dark side.

AMY GOODMAN: Saree Makdisi, I wanted to bring you in, a professor at UCLA joining us from Los Angeles. Your response to Benny Morris?

SAREE MAKDISI: Well, I mean, I think the most interesting thing is the way in which Dr. Morris talks about there being a problem way before 1948, and he’s entirely right. When the Zionist movement decided to create a Jewish homeland or a Jewish state in a land that had a largely non-Jewish population at the beginning of the twentieth century, there was in fact a problem. He’s totally right. So the question is, as he puts it in his own work, what do you do with this big population that doesn’t want there to be a state that displaces them or ignores them or sidesteps them or overshadows them or whatever? And as his own research shows and as the research of other historians shows, from the—at least the mid-1930s on, there’s talk of removing the population.
And that goes on to this very day in different forms. I mean, for example, there are people in Israel itself in Israeli politics to this very day, both within Israel proper and in the Occupied Territories, who talk about completing the process of transfer, of removal, of 1948.
And as he also says, the other thing is that, irrespective of what language one uses—and notice how candy one can be with the use of language: are they “refugees”? Are they “displaced persons”? It doesn’t really matter what language one uses; the people who were removed from their homes, that’s what matters. And as he says himself in what he just said now, what matters isn’t so much that they were removed from their homes, it’s that they were never allowed back to their homes. So whatever the circumstances of the removals and expulsions of 1948, the more important fact is, that was seen as something—as an issue forty years previously, if not longer before that, and as an issue to be blocked when they decided—when they wanted to go back to their homes after the fighting stopped. And they’ve never been allowed to go back, as you know, despite their moral and legal right to do so. That’s what this is all about.

AMY GOODMAN: Norman Finkelstein, let me bring you into this conversation, author of a number of books on Israel-Palestine—his latest is Beyond Chutzpah—speaking to us from Brussels.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, as it happens, on the plane ride over here, I read Benny Morris’s new book, and what was most surprising to me is that although the documentation remains pretty much the same as the past several books—he’s added some new material, but it’s pretty much the same as several previous books he’s written on the topic—the conclusions and the political framework has been radically changed.
Now, it’s no problem for people to change their opinions on the basis of new evidence, but what happens in Morris’s new book, 1948, is he radically changes his opinions by subtracting evidence. So let’s take just briefly, because we’re a radio program, some examples. In his previous book, he says transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism, and this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs. And he goes on to say in another book that it was the fear of territorial dispossession and displacement that was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism. So we have two basis facts: number one, Zionism, inbuilt into it was the expulsion of the indigenous population; and number two, the Palestinians or Arabs opposed Zionism, because they were fearful of losing their homes and losing their country.
But now, when you open up his new book, cause and effect have been reversed. It becomes now the Palestinians who are the “expulsionists,” to use his words, and it’s the Zionist movement which is reacting to the Palestinians, which causes them to be occasionally expulsionists. It’s as if to say the Native American population of the United States was expulsionist, because it refused to acquiesce in the European settlers taking over their homes.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Morris?

BENNY MORRIS: I think Finkelstein has a blinkered view, and he sees only certain documents. What I try to do is look at actually the breadth of the documentation and derive conclusions about the past.
The Palestinian National Movement, led by Haj Amin al-Husseini in the 1920s, ’30s and ’40s, wanted to expel the Jews. The Jews felt they had a moral right to live in the country and to reestablish their sovereignty in the country, at least in part of it. And the Palestinians thought not. They didn’t care about Jewish history. They cared nothing about Jewish tragedy or persecution over the 2,000 years and wanted to expel them from the country. They didn’t get the chance, because they lost the war. So the war—something like the reverse had happened.
But the fact is—and this is something most Arab commentators ignore or don’t tell us—the Palestinians rejected the UN partition resolution; the Jews accepted it. They accepted the possibility of dividing the country into two states, with one Arab state and a Jewish state. And the Jewish state, which was to come into being in 1947-48, according to the United Nations, was to have had an Arab population of 400,000 to 500,000 and a Jewish population of slightly more than 500,000. That was what was supposed to come into being, and that is what the Zionist movement accepted. When the Arabs rejected it and went to war against the Jewish community, it left the Jewish community no choice. It could either lose the war and be pushed into the sea, or ultimately push out the Arab minority in their midst who wanted to kill them. It’s an act of self-defense, and that’s what happened.
My facts in any—in all my books have not changed at all. They’re all there. But one has to look at also the context in which things happened, and this was the context: an expulsionist mentality, an expulsionist onslaught on the Jewish community in Palestine by Palestine’s Arabs and by the invading Arab armies, and a Jewish self-defense, which involved also pushing out large numbers of Palestinians.

AMY GOODMAN: Saree Makdisi, this issue of the acceptance of the partition, can you take it from there?

SAREE MAKDISI: Yeah. I mean, there are several things about it. For one thing, as Dr. Morris points out, it’s true that the mainstream Zionist movement accepted the partition plan. But on the other hand, as his own historical record shows, Ben-Gurion and others were very frank that the acceptance was meant to be tactical rather than sort of, you know, whole-hearted. So the idea was to accept and then go from there, not just to accept and then really settle down into the two states as envisaged by the UN partition plan.
Meanwhile, the Arab rejection of the plan had to do with the fact that basically they were-–the Palestinians and Arabs were being told that they should become a minority in their own land. That’s what this is fundamentally all about, as well. So, the question is, which viewers have to contemplate is, what would they do if somebody came and told them that they should either become a minority in their own homeland—that is, second-class citizens—or be removed from their homeland? And I think almost anybody would say this is an unreasonable proposition. So, again, it comes back to the question of, what would you do in this situation?
But more than that, I think what’s important to ask Dr. Morris, as long as we have him with us, is: when you talk about—Dr. Morris, when you talk about the events of 1948 in that famous interview with Haaretz in 2004, you say quite clearly that ethnic cleansing is justified and that the main problem, as far as you see it—then, anyway—was that Ben-Gurion didn’t go far enough in completing the ethnic cleansing, that he should have removed as much as possible of the non-Jewish population all the way to the Jordan River. So my question to you is, is this still a position that you hold? Do you still think it was justified? Do you still think that Ben-Gurion should have finished the job? And do you think still that in some ways that is the origin of the conflict as it persists to this day?

BENNY MORRIS: My point in the Haaretz interview, and I repeat it since then, is that a Jewish state could not have arisen with a vast Arab minority—40, almost 50, percent of its population being Arabs—which opposed the existence of that Jewish state and opposed their being a large minority in that state. And they went and they showed that by going to war against the Jewish state, which left the Jews in an intolerable position: either they give in and don’t get a state, or they fight back and in fighting back end up pushing out Arabs.
My point also was that had—and this is really the point, and I think you would agree with it and understand it perhaps on the logical plane, if not on the emotional plane—had the war ended, the 1948 war ended with all the Palestinian population being moved—moving, it doesn’t matter how—across the Jordan River and there establishing their state in Jordan, across the river, a Palestinian Arab state, and had the Jews had their state without or without a large Arab minority on the west bank of the Jordan River, between the river and the Mediterranean Sea, the history of the Middle East, the history of Israel-Palestine, the history of the Palestinians and of the Jews, would have been much better over the past sixty years. Since ’48, all we’ve had is terrorism, clashes, wars, and so on, all of which have caused vast suffering to both peoples. And had this separation of populations occurred in 1948, I’m sure the Middle East would have enjoyed, and both peoples would have enjoyed, a much better future since 1948.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to go to break. Then we’re going to come back to this discussion. Our guests are Benny Morris, a professor, historian at Ben-Gurion University in Tel Aviv. We’re also joined from UCLA by Saree Makdisi, who is the author of the book Palestine Inside Out. On the phone with us from Brussels is Norman Finkelstein, among his books, The Holocaust Industry and Beyond Chutzpah. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.
[break]

AMY GOODMAN: As we continue this discussion, I wanted turned, though, to an excerpt of an interview I did with former US President Jimmy Carter. This is President Carter talking about his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and why he describes the situation in Palestine as one of apartheid.

JIMMY CARTER: Well, the message is very clear. It deals with Palestine, not inside Israel itself, just the Palestinian Occupied Territories. […] And the word “apartheid” is exactly accurate. You know, this is an area that’s occupied by two powers. They are now completely separated. Palestinians can’t even ride on the same roads that the Israelis have created or built in Palestinian territory. The Israelis never see a Palestinian, except the Israeli soldiers. The Palestinians never see an Israeli, except at a distance, except the Israeli soldiers. So within Palestinian territory, they are absolutely and totally separated, much worse than they were in South Africa, by the way.


AMY GOODMAN: Professor Morris, your response?

BENNY MORRIS: I think the image of apartheid is problematic and inaccurate. I think there are—there is a separation of the settlers—between the settlers and the local Arab population in the territories, between the soldiers, the Israeli soldiers, and the Arab population, but it all stems from a vast problem of security: Arab terrorism, Arab warfare by neighboring states who support the Palestinians. And the whole thing is simply a mechanism of self-defense, which has—which has obviously unpleasant and anti-humanitarian offshoots.
But you have to remember—and this is something people also forget when they talk about history—in 1967, Israel was assaulted by Jordan in the West Bank. It didn’t go into the West Bank and East Jerusalem out of free will. The Jordanians opened up with cannon and machine guns against West Jerusalem and against the environs of Tel Aviv. And Israelis reluctantly went into the West Bank and started this occupation. It wasn’t something generated or initiated by Israel. It was defending themselves against Jordanian attack. I’m not talking now about the southern front, but the central front. The Jordanians were told twice on the morning of the 5th of June, ’67, “Do not shoot. We will not touch you.” And after they started shooting, King Hussein of Jordan was told by the Israelis through American and UN intermediaries, “Stop shooting, and we will not touch East Jerusalem or the West Bank.” He continued shooting and forced Israel’s hand. Unfortunately, Israel stayed there after ’67, until, in some ways, this very day. And this is a large part of the problem. But it’s worth looking at the root of the problem, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: Norman Finkelstein?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, first of all, the comparison with apartheid at this point has become almost a cliche. If you opened up Haaretz, Israel’s most influential newspaper, just two weeks ago, it had an editorial, which read, “Our Debt to Jimmy Carter,” and it says that although Israelis feel uncomfortable with the apartheid analogy, they go on to say, quote, “the situation begs for the comparison.” So I don’t think it’s really controversial, what Carter said, in the real world.
Number two, I think Dr. Morris is probably the only one on earth who still believes all of Israel’s actions in the Occupied Territories bear strictly on security. Does he really believe that all 460,000 settlers in the Occupied Territories, the settlements, the Jewish bypass roads, or Jews-only bypass roads—can he possibly believe still that these are there only for security and not because Israel wants to annex the territory? This is not very serious.
Furthermore, Mr. Morris engages in all sorts of fantasies about what happened in 1967. Now is not the time to go through it. But if you read Tom Segev’s book, you’ll find, already in the third week of May, the Israeli officer corps was stating clearly that "Come what may, we’ll use the opportunity of the next war to occupy or to annex or to attack the West Bank.”

BENNY MORRIS: OK, can I—can I—

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: It’s true—it’s true—it’s true that Mr. Hussein, keeping to his peace treaty with—or I should say his treaty with Egypt, joined in the attack after Israel launched its attack on Egypt. But this notion that the West Bank just by chance came to be occupied, just like Mr. Morris’s fantasy that 700,000 Palestinians just by chance came to find themselves outside their homes in 1948, is just not serious.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Morris?

BENNY MORRIS: I don’t know why Norman Finkelstein calls what I write “fantasies.” Most of his work on the Middle East and on the Israeli-Arab problem is based on my work. Look at his footnotes. But that’s a separate issue.
There is no fantasy at all in understanding that in ’67 Israel was under mortal—in mortal peril, under Arab threat and attacked by the Jordanians and by the Syrians. The business of the south and the Egyptians is more complex, but he also knows that the Egyptians closed the Straits—
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: One second, Egypt attacked Israel in 1967?

BENNY MORRIS: No, do not—I didn’t—I didn’t bother you. I didn’t bother you. I didn’t interfere with you. Please let me finish.
The Egyptians closed the Straits of Tiran, expelled the United Nations peacekeeping force and threatened Israel with destruction in May 1967, and this is what led to the crisis. You are right that there were expansionist urges among some parts of the Israeli population, including part of the officer corps, not the officer corps, but that isn’t what motivated the Israeli government to strike at Egypt on the 5th of June. What motivated the Israeli government—and it doesn’t matter what Tom Segev writes or doesn’t write in his book, which is a pretty bad book, but that’s not the point—the key thing was security in ’67. I think you even understand that.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Security is always the key thing, Mr. Morris.

BENNY MORRIS: It’s not always—it is the key. It’s true. Since Israel—

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: You can justify taking over a whole continent in the name of security.

BENNY MORRIS: Since Israel—since Israel was invaded—since Israel—

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: That’s what Hitler did.

BENNY MORRIS: Since Israel is—the comparison of Israel with Hitler is ridiculous—

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Yeah, but the—no, the notion of security—

BENNY MORRIS: —the same as your book on the Holocaust is ridiculous.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: —to constantly justify expansion.

BENNY MORRIS: No, security is a fact of Israel—

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Every state does that, Mr. Morris.

BENNY MORRIS: The problem of—

AMY GOODMAN: One at a time.

BENNY MORRIS: The problem—no, he’s interfering with what I’m saying.

AMY GOODMAN: Right.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: That’s how we went from the East Coast to the West Coast. We called it “security.”

BENNY MORRIS: The problem of security has reigned, dominated over Israeli life since ’48 quite justifiably. Israel was attacked by the Palestinian Arabs. It was invaded by Arab states. It was threatened for decades with extinction by its Arab neighbors and is currently being threatened with extinction by the Hamas, by the Hezbollah and by the Iranian patrons who are trying to get atomic weapons. So don’t dismiss the problem of security in Israeli minds or objectively.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Makdisi, I want to bring you into this discussion. Your response?

SAREE MAKDISI: OK. Well, I mean, there are several things to be said. The first of all is the business of security. And, you know, actually, I am convinced that Dr. Morris is speaking the truth, I mean that he’s being honest when he says that this is a question of security. In other words, I think that the Israelis really do think that security is what matters and that it justifies all of their actions.
The question is, what kind of collective neurosis does it take when the fact that what they’re doing in the Occupied Territories isn’t just holding territory to defend their very existence, as he’s putting it, but actively settling, colonizing—illegally colonizing—the Occupied Territories? As he knows, or as he ought to know, to this very day, the Jewish settler population in the Occupied Territories is increasing at a rate three times greater than that of the rate of population increase of Israel itself. So there is a will here to settle the land. Now, are you going to tell me that the process of putting in civilians into militarily occupied territory is done on the basis of security? Whose security is safeguarded by—

BENNY MORRIS: Let me just add something.

SAREE MAKDISI: —actively—can I finish my sentence? Whose security is safeguarded by putting civilians into a war zone? That just doesn’t make any sense at all as an argument. That doesn’t mean that the Israelis don’t also think there’s a question of security.
But the question is, when the Israelis look at these things, one has to understand a kind of collective neurosis is taking place, and I think that’s part of why we’re at loggerheads here, because they are convinced that everything—look at the way he’s talking. Before the break, what he was saying was, the conflict wouldn’t now have the shape that it does if the ethnic cleansing of 1948 had been completed all the way to the Jordan River. Another way of saying the same thing would—to go back to what he’s saying, which is why it’s justified, as far as he’s concerned—is if the Palestinian people had been literally annihilated in 1948, there also wouldn’t be much of a conflict now, because the other people wouldn’t be there. Now, is that justified? And how can one talk about the process of either mass expulsion or genocide, virtual or literal or whatever, in terms of security? So, and then also, how can one talk about—

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s put the question to Professor Morris.

BENNY MORRIS: Amy, please.

AMY GOODMAN: Are you for the completion of the expulsion of Palestinians?

BENNY MORRIS: No, I’ve always said that I’m opposed, both morally and on practical grounds, to expulsion in present circumstance—

SAREE MAKDISI: That’s not what you said in that interview.

BENNY MORRIS: —in present—that’s what I said in the interview, as well—in present circumstances. But projecting back on ’48, I said both peoples would have had a much pleasanter, a more pacific existence since ’48, if what had happened between Turkey and Greece in the 1920s had happened also in Palestine. But that’s the secondary subject here at the moment.
You raised the subject of settlements, and I think we’re in partial or even more than partial agreement on the problem of settlements. I have always opposed Israel’s settlement venture in the territories, realizing that the establishment of settlements represented an obstacle to peace. But this doesn’t undermine the argument that some of the settlement was undertaken with security in mind. It’s true that other factors entered into it, such as a desire to return to historic homelands. Religious convictions and so on went into the settlement venture, as well. But there was always, underlying the settlement venture, especially along the Jordan River in certain places on the high ground of Judea and Samaria, there were security considerations in establishing settlements.
These should have been overtaken by a desire for peace and a peace agreement by both peoples. Unfortunately, this desire for peace, I don’t think exists on the side of the Palestinians and on the part of some of their patrons like Iran, Hezbollah, and so on. I think, incidentally, if you look at any poll of Israel’s Jewish population, it will tell you that the Israelis, by and large, 70 percent, 80 percent, want to get out of the West Bank and to end the settlement venture. But Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran and others have not enabled them to leave, because they haven’t enabled or haven’t persuaded the Palestinians that peace is the right option and a two-state solution is the only possible settlement.

AMY GOODMAN: We have about forty-five seconds for each of you to talk about what has to happen right now. I want to begin with you, Norman Finkelstein. At this point, what needs to happen?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: What has to happen is, Israel has to join the international community and accept the principles for resolving the conflict that the entire world has accepted. You look at the last UN General Assembly resolution passed 161-to-7, the seven dissenting states being the United States, Israel, Nauru, Palau, Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Australia. 161
countries said a full Israeli withdrawal to the June ’67 borders and a just resolution of the refugee question. That’s what the whole accepts, and that’s what Israel rejected.

AMY GOODMAN: Benny Morris, what has to happen?

BENNY MORRIS: There has to be a change of mindset on the Palestinian side and acceptance of the two-state formula as the only necessary formula for a solution. Without the acceptance of two states, there will never be peace in Palestine.

AMY GOODMAN: Saree Makdisi?

SAREE MAKDISI: At this point, precisely because of the kind of aggressive colonization of the Occupied Territories, it’s no longer possible to separate the two populations, if it ever was. I’m not sure that it ever was, but certainly at this point it isn’t possible to do so. So the only way out at this point is for the two peoples to share the land equally and to realize that each—for each side to realize the other is not going to go away and that fantasizing about completing the process of 1948, as Benny Morris has done, is not going to lead to peace and that the only way out is peaceful, just coexistence.
AMY GOODMAN: And do you have hope that there will be peace, Saree?

SAREE MAKDISI: Yes, I do have hope, because, in fact, the situation we’re in now is a situation where there’s a country that rules over more or less equal populations of Jews and non-Jews, and it privileges Jews over non-Jews, it gives rights to Jews over non-Jews—

BENNY MORRIS: A one-state—

AMY GOODMAN: Benny Morris, do you have hope?

BENNY MORRIS: A one-state solution will end in anarchy and bloodshed. It will not exist for very long.

SAREE MAKDISI: Why? What’s wrong with the people in mixed populations?

BENNY MORRIS: Because Jews and Arabs are so different and have been in enmity for 120 years. Those are Muslims, and those are Jews. Those have Allah, and those have God, or at least they’re mostly secular, they cannot live together in one polity. They’re too different types of peoples.

SAREE MAKDISI: You know as well as I do, Professor Morris, that the great moments of Sicily and Spain, and so forth, and Baghdad, etc., were always moments where Jews and Arabs lived together and worked together—

BENNY MORRIS: Totally different circumstances.

SAREE MAKDISI: Well, circumstances change. It’s not one—

BENNY MORRIS: Totally different circumstances. [inaudible]

http://www.democracynow.org/20...nce_and_palestinians
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by LieDecrypter:
Anyway, I feel we should let this thread get back to talking about those imposters fighting over the land as we speak...even though nary one of dem sum b*tches belong over there....


Agreed...



Good, now if you don't mind joining me over in the Spiritual/Religious section...I have prepared a thread by which when can finish our discussion...

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×